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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safe, non-mutating nature. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the three-phase calculation method and that fractions are configurable, which helps the agent understand what the tool actually computes.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds domain-specific detail. There is no repetition or filler.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too high-level. It omits expected input units/ranges, the meaning of the required penalty range parameters, and what the result looks like, leaving the agent to guess crucial invocation 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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only maps broad conceptual phases to categories like atenuantes/agravantes and causes of increase/decrease. It does not clarify the meaning of required fields pena_min_anos/pena_max_anos, the numeric format for fractions (decimal vs percentage), or how the arrays should be structured.

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 identifies a specific legal computation — criminal sentence calculation under the three-phase system of art. 68 CP — with concrete references to art. 59, Súmula 231 STJ, and causes of increase/decrease. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculo_fgts or calculo_aluguel.

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 criminal sentencing dosimetry, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any excluded scenarios, such as prison progression (calculo_progressao).

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