br_get_case_carf

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context about exact lookup and upstream index unreliability, which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence adds usage constraint and justification. No unnecessary words.

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, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, parameter constraints, usage context, and even explains the absence of a search tool. Complete for a fetch 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% with parameter descriptions including examples. The description adds the constraint that exactly one parameter must be provided and that it is an exact lookup, providing meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Fetch one CARF (tax appeals) acordao by exact docket or decision number.' It specifies the verb, resource, and method, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like br_get_case_stj by naming CARF and exact lookup.

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?

It explicitly states 'Exactly one of numero_processo / numero_decisao must be given - this is an exact lookup, not a search.' It also explains why there is no free-text search tool for CARF, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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