consultar_processo_publico

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose an important behavior: CPF/CNPJ values are masked in the response, and it identifies the data as public. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as error cases, response size, or whether any authentication is needed.

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 a single, tightly constructed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the important masking behavior, earning its place efficiently.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description leaves key operational context unresolved: the meaning of 'grau', how to construct the NPU, and when this tool is the right choice among several process-related siblings. For a large toolset, this is insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to 'numero' by referring to an NPU, but it does not explain 'grau' (1g/2g) or provide format/validation guidance for the numero parameter. This is only partial parameter-level help.

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 action ('Consulta'), the resource ('dados públicos de um NPU do TJPE'), and a distinctive behavior ('mascara CPF/CNPJ no retorno'). It is specific enough to convey what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like consultar_metadados_processo or consultar_autos.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'públicos' implies it is for public data, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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