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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral caveats: SELIC already includes correction plus interest, and the post-September 2024 civil regime uses IPCA + legal rate. It also states the output includes per-parcel breakdown and totals, going beyond the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose and output, and the second conveys high-value legal warnings. No sentences are wasted, and the critical caveats are emphasized effectively.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return shape. The legal-regime warnings are especially important for correct invocation. Still, with 11 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema, a bit more detail on the remaining inputs would make it fully complete.

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. It does explain the role of indices, interest, fine, and fees, and gives a specific warning about SELIC and juros. However, it does not clarify several parameters like pro_rata, data_calculo, periodicidade_juros, multa_incide_sobre_juros, or honorarios_tipo, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 names the tool's function ('Atualização monetária / liquidação de débito judicial') and the concrete action ('corrige parcelas por um índice oficial... aplica juros, multa e honorários'). It also specifies the return value ('Retorna detalhamento por parcela e totais'), which differentiates it from sibling calculation tools.

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 provides clear context about when to use the tool: for monetary correction and judicial debt settlement with official indices. It also adds important legal guidance about SELIC and post-2024 civil rules, giving the agent actionable constraints. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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