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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it runs on a local deterministic engine and returns the full premises, start term, final date, skipped days, and legal basis. The no-assumption rule is an additional operational constraint not captured by 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 description is two tight sentences with the core function front-loaded and the key guardrail second. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

It names the returned elements and warns against filling missing bases, which helps for a calculation tool with no output schema. But with 9 required parameters and very low schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation in a complex legal-deadline domain.

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 22% for 9 required parameters. The description does not explain uf, mode, days, multiplier, multiplierBasis, customHolidays, or startBasis; it only vaguely references 'termo inicial' and 'bases', leaving most required inputs 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 uses a specific verb and resource: calculates a legal deadline in a local deterministic engine. It is clearly a deadline calculator, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like civil_prescription_calculate or debt_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?

It includes a meaningful guardrail: 'nunca preencha bases ausentes por suposição' (never fill missing bases by assumption). However, it does not say when to use this tool versus the many other calculation siblings, and 'Ferramenta de consulta R2' is not explained.

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