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

The description is excellent for behavioral transparency because it specifies that it runs two different core logic paths: one using the 'pena máxima em abstrato' and another using the 'pena aplicada.' This is crucial behavioral context that goes beyond the listed parameters and annotations.

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 definition is highly concise and efficient. Both sentences are front-loaded with core logic (methods of calculation and included components) without unnecessary filler.

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?

While it explains the method of calculation, it lacks practical context such as jurisdictional scope, specific legal criteria used for 'interruptive milestones,' or constraints on the input values (e.g., maximum days for a specific jurisdiction). It is sufficient to define the operation but insufficient for expert-level implementation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides no semantics or hints regarding the meaning of any specific input fields. Given the 10 required parameters and complex nesting, the description fails to add any meaningful value beyond the title and general purpose.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function as calculating criminal prescription. It distinguishes between two calculation methods (maximum abstract penalty vs. applied penalty) and highlights the inclusion of interruptive milestones, providing high specificity.

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 tool description does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over other similar calculation tools in the sibling list. However, it defines the specific types of calculations it handles, which provides some contextual guidance.

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