processos_djen

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers two valuable disclosures: that matching is by NAME and may return homônimos (a real correctness caveat), and the ~20 queries/minute rate limit. It stops short of auth requirements, empty-result behavior, or pagination, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences with zero padding: purpose first, then the cnpj/sócios behavior, then the homonym caveat, then the rate limit. Front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation search tool, the description covers the key behavioral caveats (name matching, homonyms, rate limit) and the main parameter interaction. It omits how nome and cnpj combine when both are absent/present and return-value shape, minor gaps for a list/search tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the cnpj + incluir_socios=true interaction (searches current partners, up to 8) and reinforcing the name-based matching semantics.

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 (Busca), resource (comunicações processuais: intimações, citações, distribuições) and source (DJEN/CNJ), plus the scope (by party name, grouped by process). This is clearly distinct from the CNPJ/company-oriented siblings, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: it documents the cnpj + incluir_socios=true path to search partner names. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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