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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by saying the computation is performed 'por código, com fundamento e premissas', hinting the result includes the legal basis and premises — but it says nothing about how repeatOffender or baseMethod affect the outcome, or what the returned figures look like.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and its phases, the second states how it is computed and what accompanies the result.

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?

With 9 required parameters, zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining inputs and results and does not. An agent can tell roughly what the tool is for but not how to populate the parameters or interpret the phases correctly.

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%, and the description only loosely maps its three phases onto aggravating/attenuating/increases/decreases. It gives no meaning for minPenaltyMonths, maxPenaltyMonths, unfavorableCircumstances (0–8), repeatOffender, or the baseMethod enum choice between eighth_of_range and sixth_of_minimum — a serious gap for 9 required parameters.

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 names a specific computation (arithmetic of sentence dosimetry) and enumerates the three phases it covers (base penalty, aggravating/attenuating, increase/decrease causes), which concretely scopes it against generic calculators. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like criminal_prescription_calculate or sentence_execution_calculate, but the domain phrase is distinctive enough to orient an agent.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling calculation tools, nor of any prerequisite (e.g., that it requires a legal penalty range in months). Usage must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'dosimetria da pena'.

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