br_search_case_stj

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it scans monthly bulk files, a miss means 'not in scanned window' not 'does not exist', and coverage starts May 2022. This fully discloses behavior beyond annotations.

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 description is three sentences: first states purpose, second differentiates from sibling, third explains scanning behavior and coverage. Front-loaded, no unnecessary details, every 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?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, behavioral notes, and coverage start. However, it could slightly improve by explicitly stating that results may not be real-time due to monthly file scans, though it is implied.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. It restates that orgao is a chamber/section and query matches process number or text, but the schema already provides equivalent descriptions.

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 tool searches STJ acordaos and returns actual ruling text (ementa and decisao). It explicitly contrasts with sibling br_search_processos (metadata only), providing a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other similar tools.

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 description explicitly says 'Unlike br_search_processos (DataJud, metadata only), this returns the actual...' which directly guides when to use this tool vs the sibling. It also explains the scanning window limitation and coverage start, setting proper expectations for results.

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