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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some context by noting the calculation is code-based and includes legal basis and premises, but it does not explain the return format or any limitations.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output. No wasted words, though the second sentence about code, basis and premises could be more informative.

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 calculation tool with five required parameters, a ten-option enum and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It states the output in broad terms but leaves critical parameter semantics and usage conditions unexplained.

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 20%, and the description does little to compensate. It mentions interruptions and suspensions but does not explain the 'kind' enum values, the role of 'referenceDate', or the expected format for the date fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: calculates civil prescription, the applicable deadline and the date the claim prescribes, including interruptions and suspensions. It distinguishes itself from criminal prescription by the word 'civil', though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prazo_calculate or criminal_prescription_calculate. Usage is only implied from the tool name and the mention that interruption and suspension causes should be informed.

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