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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses return behavior ('detalhamento por parcela e totais') and the crucial SELIC double-counting trap plus the Lei 14.905/2024 regime. This materially shapes how an agent should configure and interpret the calculation.

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?

Three short, information-dense segments: scope/action, return shape, and critical legal warning. No filler; every sentence carries load.

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 complex 11-parameter calculation with no output schema, the description gives purpose, output shape, and the legal caveats that prevent miscomputation. It stops short of documenting defaults (e.g. data_calculo/pro-rata) and edge-case routing, leaving some burden on the agent.

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 compensates by explaining the role of index, interest, penalty, fees, and parcelas, and by clarifying the SELIC/interest relationship and post-2024 index choice. It does not spell out every parameter such as pro_rata or multa_incide_sobre_juros, but the core legal semantics are conveyed.

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 opens with a specific scope: 'Atualização monetária / liquidação de débito judicial', names the resource ('parcelas'), and states the operations: correction by official index plus interest, fine, and fees. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like calculo_indice or calculo_trabalhista without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It provides a clear use context (judicial debt settlement/monetary update) and critical legal handling rules: SELIC already bundles correction+interest, and post-09/2024 civil cases should use IPCA + legal rate. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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