Ver detalhe completo de um processo de marca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of retrieved data, but the genuinely behavioral trait (6h local cache, forcar_atualizacao override) lives only in the schema parameter description, so the body adds limited behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the critical identifier caveat. Slightly long in the field enumeration but every listed field is informative, and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data. Combined with the schema-level handling of salvar_html and forcar_atualizacao, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% (baseline 3), but the description earns extra credit by clarifying that cod_pedido is not the public process number but an internal pePI ID obtained from a prior search result — a distinction an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 (busca o detalhe completo de um processo de marca) and enumerates the exact payload: classes de Nice, titulares, procurador, datas, prioridade unionista e histórico de petições. It also clearly positions itself as the detail-fetch that follows a search, distinguishing it from the inpi_search_* siblings.

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 establishes the precondition clearly: you must first run one of the search tools and take the CodPedido from their 'CodPedido (use em inpi_get_process_detail)' field. No explicit when-not or named sibling alternative, but the workflow dependency is unambiguous.

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