Assuntos CNJ

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful domain context (source table, and how the returned code is consumed) but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the integrating detail. Efficient, though the parenthetical is slightly parenthetical-heavy rather than crisp.

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 read-only catalog lookup with annotations covering safety, a 1-param schema at full coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the catalog contains and where the code is consumed. It omits the shape/fields of returned entries, but for a catalog of this simplicity that gap is minor.

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% and the single 'filtro' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Parte do nome ou do código do assunto'. The description adds no further parameter detail (no matching semantics, no wildcard/normalization notes), so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema applies.

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 identifies the specific resource: 'Assuntos da Tabela Processual Unificada do CNJ cadastrados no PJe-Calc', which tells an agent this is the CNJ-subject catalog. The parenthetical tying the code to 'verbas[].personalizada.assuntoCnj' sharpens its purpose further. It lacks an explicit verb (list/look up) and does not directly differentiate itself from sibling catalogs like catalogo_verbas, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical ('código para verbas personalizadas: verbas[].personalizada.assuntoCnj') implies the key use case — retrieving the code to fill a custom-verba field — which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing against catalogo_verbas or other catalog siblings.

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