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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds that the calculation is code-based and returns legal basis/premises, but it does not explain assumptions, limitations, output shape, or parameter dependencies beyond that.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and method, and contains no unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for a concise tool description.

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?

This is a complex calculation tool with eight required parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description does not explain how the parameters interact, what inputs are expected for key dates and arrays, or what the resulting legal basis and premises will contain, leaving too much for the agent to infer.

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 38%, so the description should compensate. It mentions the official average rate and overcharged discounts, which loosely map to referenceRate and discounts/refund, but it gives no meaning for most required parameters such as contractDate, referenceDate, citationDate, withdrawals, or informedMonthlyRate.

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: recalculating consigned credit card debts (RMC/RCC) as consigned loans using the Brazilian Central Bank official average rate, including overcharged amounts. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as loan_review_calculate or undue_charges_calculate.

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?

The description implies the use case—recalculating RMC/RCC charges via the Central Bank average rate—but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. With many calculation siblings, this is a meaningful gap, though the implied context is adequate for a minimum-viable score.

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