Confirmar leitura de intimação no DJe

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

This is an excellent behavioral disclosure. The description explicitly warns that the action is irreversible, registers an official timestamp, starts a legal deadline, defaults to dry-run, and depends on an environment variable. This goes far beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and idempotentHint, giving the agent complete awareness of side effects.

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?

Although long, the description is highly structured and every section earns its place. The high-risk warning is front-loaded, the safety gate is clearly separated from credentials, and the text is formatted for quick scanning. This is appropriate for a high-stakes, irreversible operation.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, irreversibility, the dry-run fallback, required credentials, and operational constraints. Together with the output schema and annotations, it fully equips an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool safely.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context by tying confirmar to the safety gate, clarifying id_intimacao's provenance via listar_intimacoes, and emphasizing the real-world legal effect of the parameters.

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 ('Confirma a leitura de uma intimação'), the target system ('Domicílio Judicial Eletrônico'), and the legal consequence (starting the procedural deadline). This makes the tool immediately distinguishable from siblings like listar_intimacoes or buscar_processo_por_numero.

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 provides strong contextual guidance: it requires confirmar=True and DJE_PERMITIR_CONFIRMACAO_LEITURA=true for real execution, and it mentions that id_intimacao comes from listar_intimacoes. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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