br_get_processo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that it fetches exactly one docket and requires an exact CNJ number, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant or filler content. Every word earns its keep.

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 the tool's simplicity (fetch one item by ID), the presence of annotations covering safety, and the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the essential information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters, and the tool description adds clarifying notes: tribunal code (e.g., 'STJ') and numero_processo format with parentheses and punctuation ignored. This extra context (format, example) moves beyond the schema baseline of 3 to a 5.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'one court docket', and the specific method 'by its exact CNJ unified process number'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like br_search_processos (search) and court-specific get tools (e.g., br_get_case_stj) by being generic and requiring an exact match.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for court-specific dockets the dedicated get tools should be used, nor does it specify that it should not be used for searching or partial matches. The description only implies exact match via 'exact CNJ unified process number' but provides no explicit context.

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