List case movements

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: 20-60 s latency, newest-first default, grouping by instance, and what each movement carries (TPU code, Portuguese name, complements, English hint). The latency warning is especially valuable for an agent planning calls.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the filtering shortcut, and the operational warning. The latency note is placed last where it does not bury the core purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still summarizes the movement payload well. Remaining gaps are minor: pagination beyond `limit` and what happens when a case is not found are unstated.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well, including the court/limit/since semantics. The description adds meaning to `since` (only new movements) and `order` (newest first by default) but does not explain `limit`'s per-instance scope, which is only visible in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the procedural movements (docket entries) of a case') with default ordering and grouping. It is clearly a read of one case's movements, distinct from get_case and search_cases, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use `since` to get only new movements' is a real usage hint, and the default ordering/grouping set expectations. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_case or search_cases, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain cnjNumber).

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