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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds legal context and the three-phase calculation structure, but it does not disclose output format, edge-case handling, or parameter constraints. There is 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, legal basis, and the three-phase methodology. It contains no filler, and each parenthetical adds relevant legal specificity.

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 9-parameter legal calculation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter-level semantics, fraction units, input constraints, and return-value expectations, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it with confidence without external documentation.

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 burden of explaining nine parameters, but it only maps broad legal concepts and vaguely mentions 'Frações configuráveis.' It does not clarify the meaning of pena_min_anos/pena_max_anos, how agravantes/atenuantes numbers are counted, the fraction format, or the structure of causas_aumento/causas_diminuicao arrays.

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 as a Brazilian criminal sentence dosimetry calculator using the three-phase system under art. 68 CP, naming each phase and its legal reference. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the other calculo_* siblings, though it does so without explicitly naming an alternative tool.

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 legal content makes the intended use reasonably clear: calculating criminal sentences according to the trifásico system. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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