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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable algorithmic detail: shareable mass is computed as assets minus debts according to the regime, each spouse receives a quota, and a 'torna' compensates imbalance. It also discloses that entra_partilha overrides the regime default, which is non-obvious behavioral context.

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 front-loads the purpose and calculation formula, the second gives a targeted parameter instruction. There is no filler, repetition of schema details, or unnecessary explanation.

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?

The description captures the core algorithm and override behavior, but with no output schema it does not describe the return shape or result structure. It also omits semantics for several optional fields that might be relevant for accurate use. For simple cases an agent can proceed, but for edge-case inputs like oneroso or anterior_casamento it must guess.

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 compensate, and it does explain the roles of bens, dívidas, regime, and entra_partilha. However, it leaves several nested fields undefined—oneroso, titular, heranca_doacao, adquirido_na_constancia, nomes, and anterior_casamento—so an agent must infer their meaning. This partial coverage warrants a moderate score.

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 verb ('apura') and a specific resource ('massa partilhável', 'quota de cada cônjuge') within a clearly defined domain: divorce property division by marital regime under the Civil Code. It also mentions the override mechanism (entra_partilha), which clarifies behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculo_pensao and calculo_fgts.

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 clearly implies the use case—divorce asset division by property regime—and lists the regimes in the schema. It gives a conditional usage instruction for the entra_partilha flag. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.