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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by describing the three calculation phases and noting that fractions are configurable. There is no contradiction with 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?

One compact, information-dense sentence with no filler. The legal basis is front-loaded, the phases are presented in order, and the mention of configurable fractions is essential rather than redundant.

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 provides strong domain context for a complex legal calculator, but it is operationally incomplete: there is no output schema, no return format, no default fraction values, and no guidance on how to fill the array fields such as causas_aumento and causas_diminuicao.

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 carries most of the semantic weight. It maps phases to likely parameter groups (judicial circumstances, aggravating/mitigating factors, increase/decrease causes) and mentions configurable fractions, but it does not explain fraction format/units, defaults, or how pena_min_anos and pena_max_anos are used.

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's purpose: calculating criminal sentence dosimetry under the Brazilian three-phase system (art. 68 CP). It is far more specific than a tautology and provides concrete legal context, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from criminal-law siblings such as calculo_progressao.

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 context implies when the tool should be used, but the description does not state explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for sentencing calculations rather than other criminal-law calculations.

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