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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real domain context beyond that — the calculation is deterministic ('feita por código'), carries legal grounding and premises, and separates the two procedural rites. It says nothing about the shape of the returned calculation (no output schema exists), which leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the differentiating prison/penhora split is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the closing clause about legal grounding and premises is abstract rather than operational.

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?

For a 10-required-parameter computation with no output schema, the description should explain at least the period/payment inputs and what the result contains (the two-rite breakdown). It hints at the result structure but leaves the agent unable to populate most required fields confidently.

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 description coverage is only 10% (just filingDate), so the description must carry the burden for 10 required parameters — and it does not. 'Correção e juros' loosely gestures at correctionIndex and interest, and 'três últimas parcelas' at the period bounds, but monthlyAmount, minimumWagePercent, dueDay, payments and referenceDate are entirely unaddressed.

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 names the resource (alimony debt / débito de pensão alimentícia) and its defining feature: the split between the imprisonment rite (last three installments) and the attachment (penhora) rite, with correction and interest. That detail implicitly separates it from siblings like alimony_value_calculate and debt_calculate, though no sibling is named explicitly and the verb 'calculate' only appears in the tool name.

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 never says when to pick this over alimony_value_calculate or the generic debt_calculate, nor what preconditions exist (e.g. whether the execution must already be filed). The agent must infer routing from the prison/penhora split alone.

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