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 that the computation is code-based and returns with legal foundation and premises ('com fundamento e premissas'), which hints at output content beyond a raw number, but it omits return structure and how regime choices affect the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, no filler. Slightly terse given the complexity it must support.

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?

Five required parameters, an unlabeled enum, nested arrays, no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description leaves the agent unable to map regime values or understand the returned structure, which is a significant gap for a domain-specific legal calculation tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and fails to compensate. It only gestures at 'regime' without explaining the four enum values (partial, universal, separation, final_participation) or the owner enum (common/a/b) on assets and debts.

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 action (division of assets) conditioned on the property regime and that each party's share is computed. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculation tools like alimony_value_calculate or debt_calculate, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 vs the many sibling calculators, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The mention of 'conforme o regime de bens' implies the regime choice matters but never explains which situations call for this tool.

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