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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool corrects installments, applies interest/penalties/fees, and returns a per-installment breakdown plus totals. The legal regime warning adds important behavioral context that prevents incorrect calculations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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-purposeful sentences: the first fronts the purpose, scope, and output shape, and the second packages the essential legal caveat under 'ATENÇÃO'. There is no filler and no redundant repetition of schema content.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions, the description covers the main calculation inputs, the high-stakes legal rules, and the return format ('detalhamento por parcela e totais'). It leaves minor gaps for secondary parameters like pro-rata, fee type, and interest compounding behavior, which are likely inferable from the schema enums.

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 must compensate; it does by adding meaning to 'indice' with a list of official indexes and by clarifying how SELIC, IPCA, juros, multa, and honorários should be treated. It does not individually cover every parameter such as pro_rata, honorarios_tipo, or periodicidade_juros, but the legal guidance meaningfully reduces ambiguity for the most critical inputs.

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 starts with 'Atualização monetária / liquidação de débito judicial' and explains that the tool 'corrige parcelas por um índice oficial' and 'aplica juros, multa e honorários'. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, clearly separating it from sibling calculators such as calculo_aluguel or calculo_indice.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for judicial debt monetary updating/settlement, and it even gives conditional legal guidance such as 'SELIC já engloba correção+juros' and 'pós-set/2024 o cível usa IPCA + taxa legal'. This is actionable parameter-level guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them.

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