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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the three-phase calculation sequence, the role of judicial circumstances, mitigating/aggravating factors, and proportional adjustments. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in relevant legal citations, phases, and configurability. Every element serves a purpose, and there is no fluff 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?

Given the high parameter count (9), no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits the required inputs, the meaning of each fraction, and what the tool returns. The legal context is helpful but leaves too many operational gaps.

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 by explaining the parameters, but it does not mention key inputs like pena_min_anos, pena_max_anos, fracao_fase1, or fracao_fase2. It provides high-level conceptual context about phases and configurable fractions, but agents cannot map these to the actual schema properties with confidence.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: calculating criminal sentence dosimetry under the Brazilian three-phase system (art. 68 CP). It includes the legal basis and the phases involved, which distinguishes it from other 'calculo_*' siblings focused on different legal/administrative calculations. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'calcula' and does not name sibling alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for sentencing calculations by describing the trifásico method, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculation tools. There are no exclusions or explicit alternative references, so usage guidance is only implied through the legal terminology.

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