Listar Movimentacoes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that results are aggregated across all instances and sorted newest-to-oldest, which is genuinely useful context. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether any access restrictions apply, or how pagination/truncation behaves beyond what the schema and output schema already say.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the returned fields and ordering. No filler, no repetition of the tool title.

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 simple three-parameter read with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the shape/ordering of results. The one remaining gap is a lack of explicit differentiation from adjacent tools that also surface case information.

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 100%, including the rationale for the required tribunal and the 20-default/50-max limit, so the structured field already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (listar movimentações de um processo judicial) and adds scope detail: it merges all instances (G1, G2) and orders newest-first. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not (e.g., resumir_andamento or listar_intimacoes), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose – 'list recent movements' suggests consulting a case history, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like resumir_andamento or listar_intimacoes. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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