Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by mentioning prepaid credits, official source, and LGPD compliance (data controller responsibility). However, it does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or pagination, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and to the point, but it repeats 'fonte oficial' and 'não é dado sigiloso' unnecessarily. Overall, it is concise enough and well-structured as a short paragraph.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of parameter explanations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify how parameters combine, which are necessary, or what the response contains (e.g., case details, status). This leaves the tool under-specified for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 14 parameters are listed as optional strings with no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not explain any of them (e.g., 'uf', 'cpf', 'numero_processo'). With schema coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by providing parameter meaning or usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a query tool ('consulta') for the TSE's Electronic Judicial Process (PJe) from an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'show_version' by its specific domain. However, it does not specify the exact type of query (e.g., searching by case number, party name) despite listing many parameters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions payment and official source but does not describe typical use cases or prerequisites. Since there are no similar sibling tools, this lack of explicit direction lowers the score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.