consultar_processo_pr

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating that the tool returns the response page and links, and it frames the operation as a public query. No contradiction with annotations.

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 entire definition is one dense sentence: purpose, example, and return behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The only notable absence is explicit guidance on choosing this sibling over the other consultar_* tools, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 sole required parameter `numero` has no schema documentation. The description compensates by mapping `numero` to a protocol number and providing the example format 196886/26, so an agent can populate the parameter correctly.

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 — public consultation of a process by protocol number — and gives a concrete example (196886/26). This criterion clearly distinguishes it from sibling consultation tools like consultar_licitacoes_pr and consultar_acordaos_pr.

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 trigger condition (having a protocol number) is implied by the description, and an example makes it concrete. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which matters given the large sibling list of similar consultar_* tools.

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