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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the calculation is done by code and returns legal basis and assumptions, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose output format, input limits, or error behavior.

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 purpose and legal basis, followed by a brief behavioral note. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with a complex nested array and legal calculation, the description gives the legal foundation and notes that the calculation is code-based with assumptions, but it omits details on how to structure requests, what combination values mean, and what the output contains. Annotations cover safety, but the domain complexity still leaves gaps.

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 33% (only declaredValue is described). The description names some request categories and combination types, but does not explain the fields within each request (amount, monthlyAmount, overdueTotal, dueInstallments) or the meaning of the combination enum values. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('calcular'), resource ('valor da causa'), legal basis ('art. 292 do CPC') and input source ('a partir dos pedidos'). It distinguishes this general claim-value aggregator from the more specific sibling calculators, but does not explicitly name an alternative 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'a partir dos pedidos' and the legal context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many sibling calculation tools.

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