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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes a legal basis and premises (fundamento e premissas), which is useful, but it doesn't describe the return format or edge-case 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 tight sentences lead with the core purpose and then note the calculation basis. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is somewhat vague.

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 five required, undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify units, the fineRents vs fineAmount relationship, and validation constraints. None of that is present, so an agent could easily miscall it.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for five parameters, yet it never explains them individually. It only implies that contractMonths and monthsFulfilled drive the proportionality, leaving the critical distinction between fineRents and fineAmount (two alternative ways to express the fine) undocumented.

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 verb and resource: it computes the penalty (multa) for early return of a leased property, proportional to remaining contract time. This clearly separates it from a plain adjustment tool, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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 alternatives like rent_adjustment_calculate or other calculate siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose phrase.

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