buscar_processo_por_numero

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes the API source, coverage, and behavior with/without tribunal. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if number not found), rate limits, or authentication, leaving gaps.

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 concise, at three short lines, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary details without wordiness. Slight improvement could be structuring with bullet points, but it's effective.

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 tool's complexity (searching across many courts, returning various data fields), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, data source, coverage, and an important usage nuance (tribunal omission). An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters' formats and behavior. The description adds no additional meaning to the input parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches for judicial process data by CNJ number, specifying it uses the DataJud API and returns metadata, class, subjects, court, parties, and movements. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'listar_processos_monitorados' or 'listar_tribunais'.

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 provides guidance on when to specify 'tribunal' vs omitting it, noting that omission triggers a slower search across all courts. It also mentions coverage of 91 courts, helping the agent decide context. No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear enough.

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