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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful computational behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool applies a regime-specific default for inclusion in the shared estate and that setting 'entra_partilha' on an asset overrides that default. It also previews the key result components: shareable mass, each spouse's quota, and equalization.

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 dense sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the core computation and outputs, and the second gives one actionable tip about the override flag. Every word contributes to tool selection or correct invocation.

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 complex nested inputs, four distinct regimes, and no output schema, the description provides a strong high-level contract but not a complete one. It explains inputs conceptually and previews the main outputs, but it does not specify how each regime affects the default treatment, what the less obvious ownership flags mean, or the output structure, leaving some room for inference.

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 description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does relate 'bens', 'dividas', and 'regime' through the formula and explains the override role of 'entra_partilha'. However, it leaves several nested properties unexplained ('oneroso', 'titular', 'heranca_doacao', 'adquirido_na_constancia', 'anterior_casamento', and the 'nomes' object), so an agent still cannot fully infer their semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it calculates property division in divorce under the Civil Code, explicitly stating the formula (assets minus debts per regime) and the outputs (each spouse's share, equalization payment). This clearly differentiates it from the other calculo_* sibling tools even without naming them.

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 makes the invocation context unambiguous: it is for divorce property sharing under a marital property regime, not alimony, labor, or housing calculations. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools explicitly, but the domain-specified wording is enough to route an agent correctly.

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