Listar Intimacoes

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares read-only operation with no legal effect, discloses that secret-of-justice items have suppressed content with metadata only, and lists the required OAuth2 credential env vars including the audit CPF. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior for the limite parameter.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the read-only guarantee, then the return content and redaction caveat, then credentials. The credential block is a few lines of boilerplate but genuinely needed since no annotations exist to convey auth requirements.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining decisions an agent faces: read-only safety, secret-of-justice redaction, auth prerequisites, and default filtering. Only pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented there, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only indirect context — that results are scoped to the CNPJ/CPF in DJE_BEHALF_OF_CPF, an env var rather than a parameter — and nothing about how limite interacts with paging.

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 and resource ("Lista comunicações processuais do Domicílio Judicial Eletrônico") and enumerates what types are returned (intimações, citações, notificações). It does not differentiate itself from the close siblings buscar_comunicacoes_djen or processos_por_parte_djen, so purpose is clear but sibling routing is absent.

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?

Implies the tool's context (listing DJe communications for the registered CPF/CNPJ) but never states when to prefer it over buscar_comunicacoes_djen or how it relates to confirmar_leitura_intimacao. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names.

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