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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the critical non-additivity behavior of SELIC (includes correction + interest) and the post-2024 legal regime. It also states the return shape ('detalhamento por parcela e totais'). No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences: the first states the operation and return value, the second front-loads the most important legal caveats. No filler words or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 complex 11-parameter financial calculation with no output schema, the description gives enough orientation: purpose, inputs, return summary, and legal warnings. It is not fully complete because some parameter interactions and defaults (e.g., pro-rata behavior, fee bases) are not specified, but the schema covers structural details.

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 compensates only partially: it maps parcelas, indice, juros, multa, and honorarios, and warns about SELIC combined with tax. It leaves several parameters (pro_rata, multa_incide_sobre_juros, data_calculo, installment type semantics) unexplained, though their names and enums provide some self-evident meaning.

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 domain and action: 'Atualização monetária / liquidação de débito judicial' that corrects parcelas by official indices and applies interest, penalties, and fees. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculo_* tools by judicial-debt settlement scope.

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 gives clear legal context for when the tool is appropriate, including the SELIC rule and the post-09/2024 IPCA + legal-rate regime. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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