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 meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about the SELIC regime and the post-2024 legal framework, and states that the tool returns a per-installment breakdown plus totals. This is genuinely useful calibration for legal calculations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior is stated, and the legal warning is compact but critical. Every sentence earns its place and the warning is placed at the end where it does not obscure the main purpose.

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?

This is a complex legal calculation tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description covers the high-level purpose and the return shape, but it is not complete enough to correctly invoke the tool for all parameters, especially the many optional legal-calculation toggles and date/interest modes.

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 for 11 undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references indices, interest, fines, and fees, and mentions SELIC's special behavior, but it does not explain key parameters such as pro_rata, periodicidade_juros, multa_incide_sobre_juros, honorarios_tipo, data_calculo, or the structure of parcelas. Too much parameter meaning is left to the agent to infer.

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 states a specific purpose: monetary updating and judicial debt settlement, correcting installments by an official index and applying interest, fines, and fees. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like calculo_aluguel or calculo_indice by naming the exact financial-legal operation and the return of per-installment details and totals.

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 description provides strong usage context, especially the legal warning: SELIC already includes both correction and interest, and post-September/2024 civil cases use IPCA plus the legal rate under Lei 14.905/2024. This guides correct parameter selection and prevents double-counting, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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