br_search_processos

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds behavioral context: what data is included (timeline, metadata) and excluded (ruling text), and coverage limits (STF not covered). This goes 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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

The description covers key aspects: what is searched, what is excluded, coverage, and references additional documentation. Output schema exists, so return format is not needed. Minor gap: no explicit comparison with sibling tools, but overall sufficient for agent invocation.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The main description does not add significant new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool searches court dockets (procedural metadata) in a tribunal's DataJud CNJ index, specifically excluding ruling text. It distinguishes from siblings by describing the resource and coverage (e.g., STF not covered).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for procedural metadata and mentions exclusions (no ruling text, no STF), but lacks direct guidance on when to prefer other sibling tools.

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