Sincronizar tabelas regionais (REST)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: server-side role, the app-must-be-running precondition, and the endpoint form. It doesn't detail side effects on the receiving TRT, so not a full 5.

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 key routing distinction (server-side, does not update local tables) is front-loaded in the first clause, which is exactly right. It is a dense single paragraph packing endpoint template and return type, slightly crammed but with no wasted sentences.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, the description names the return type (SincronizacaoTabelasDTO regional) and the runtime precondition. Enough for correct invocation, though it could say more about what the sync actually changes on the remote side.

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 enum already documents tribunal and the descriptions cover hash and proxy. The description adds only marginal detail (uppercase requirement, which the enum implies, and the proxy endpoint path). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (sincronizar tabelas regionais) and immediately scopes it as the server-side endpoint, explicitly noting it does NOT update this instance's tables. This distinguishes it from sibling tabelas_atualizar and rest_tabelas_sincronizar_nacionais without opening either 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 an explicit when-not ('NÃO atualiza as tabelas deste PJe-Calc') and names the alternative to use instead ('para isso use tabelas_atualizar'). Also states the precondition 'Requer o app em execução', leaving little to inference.

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