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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is light. It adds valuable context: the three-phase calculation, the Súmula 231 STJ constraint on phase 2, and configurable fractions. No contradiction with annotations; no side effects are implied.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, packs legal citations into parentheticals, and closes with the configurable-fractions detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 calculation with 9 parameters and no output schema, the legal algorithm is well covered, but an agent is left to infer how the required pena_min_anos/pena_max_anos map to the three phases and what the result or fraction format looks like. These are meaningful gaps given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate and does partially: it maps 'circunstâncias judiciais' to circunstancias_desfavoraveis, 'atenuantes/agravantes' to those fields, and 'causas de aumento/diminuição' to the cause arrays. But it never names pena_min_anos/pena_max_anos as the statutory range, nor specifies units, fraction format, or defaults for optional fields.

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 identifies the resource ('Dosimetria da pena') and the exact legal method (art. 68 CP, three-phase system), which clearly separates this from sibling calculo_* tools such as calculo_fgts or calculo_pensao. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calcula', so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

The legal context implies when to use it: for criminal sentence dosimetry with the three-phase framework, not for other calculations. However, it never states when not to use it, mentions no alternative tools, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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