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 safe/read-only profile is clear. The description adds that the calculation runs 'por código, com fundamento e premissas', hinting the result carries legal basis and premises, but it does not describe the return structure or any methodology limits.

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 that front-load the purpose and the refund modes without filler. Dense with legal jargon but no redundant phrasing.

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 14-parameter, all-required financial calculation with no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain how the many date/rate/installment inputs interact or what the computed output contains. It conveys the concept but not enough to call the tool correctly without leaning on the schema.

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 14 required parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only touches on modality, contractDate and refund (simple/double). It says nothing about principal, installments, firstDueDate, paidInstallments, citationDate, referenceDate, informedMonthlyRate or informedRateLabel, leaving most of the input burden unexplained.

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+resource: 'Revisional de empréstimo ou financiamento' that 'recalcula o contrato e apura o que foi pago a mais', differentiating it conceptually from siblings like debt_calculate or over_indebtedness_calculate. It clearly conveys what the tool computes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 purpose: it applies when reviewing a loan/financing contract against the official Central Bank average rate. There are no explicit conditions for when to use this instead of sibling tools like undue_charges_calculate or over_indebtedness_calculate, and no prerequisites stated.

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