consultar_acordaos_pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include ementas and PDF links, but it does not clarify the CSV condition, pagination behavior, or the required 'ano' context. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not richly transparent.

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 a single economical sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is reasonably concise, though the final clause is syntactically awkward and could have been split into clear, structured statements about the CSV output.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, but the tool still has six input parameters with zero schema coverage and no parameter explanations in the description. An agent is left without critical information about required filters, pagination, and search semantics, so the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters: ano, texto, limite, relator, entidade, or deslocamento. With no parameter-level guidance anywhere, an agent cannot reason about how to build a correct search using the available inputs.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Pesquisa acórdãos do ViaJuris'. It also adds a useful output detail by mentioning ementas and PDF links in a CSV context, which helps distinguish it from sibling portal tools. It loses the top score because the clause 'quando publicados no CSV' is slightly ambiguous.

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 intended use is reasonably clear: use this tool to search ViaJuris acórdãos. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares with other tools like consultar_base_pr or consultar_dados_pit_pr. The sibling names help, but the description itself does not actively route the agent.

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