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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds algorithmic transparency by detailing the three-phase computation and noting that fractions are configurable, which is useful beyond the 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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core definition and then add the legal-phases detail and the configurable-fractions note. No redundant wording.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description still omits expected return shape, input constraints or units, and how the optional parameters interact. It is conceptually rich but operationally incomplete.

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 maps legal concepts to the phase-related parameters (aggravating/mitigating factors, increase/decrease causes, configurable fractions) but leaves some parameters (pena_min_anos, pena_max_anos) and array item requirements implicit.

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 resource (penalty dosimetry under Brazil's three-phase system) and breaks down the three phases with legal references (art. 59, STJ Precedente 231, causes of increase/decrease). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculo_* tools covering unrelated financial and labor calculations.

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 makes the intended use case clear, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools is provided. An agent must infer that all other calculo_* tools are out of scope.

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