buscar_processo_por_numero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context by revealing the tool consults the public DataJud API, covers 91 tribunals, and becomes slower when no tribunal is specified. It does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, or authentication expectations, but for a read-style public API lookup the disclosed context is reasonably helpful.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the data source and return contents, and the third gives relevant scope coverage. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents both parameters, the description is largely complete for direct invocation. It covers data source, scope, and return categories, though it does not provide explicit sibling-routing guidance or failure/error expectations.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the CNJ-number concept but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or the performance implication of omitting tribunal.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Busca os dados de um processo judicial pelo número CNJ' and enumerates the returned data (metadados, classe, assuntos, órgão julgador, partes, movimentações). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as listar_movimentacoes, which may also expose movement data.

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 implies the tool is used to look up process data by CNJ number and provides useful operational guidance about the slower search when tribunal is omitted. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like listar_movimentacoes or resumir_andamento, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary use.

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