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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that: it reveals the core calculation (assets minus debts according to regime), the concept of compensation for imbalance, and the override behavior for 'entra_partilha'. 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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and legal basis, then give the most important user-actionable instruction. No filler or repetition; every clause adds information.

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 gives the algorithm and the override mechanism, which is a solid baseline. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent is left without the return shape, field-level input semantics, or examples of how regime defaults differ. For a legal calculation involving nested assets and debts, this is helpful but not 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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'bens' and 'dívidas' conceptually and explains 'entra_partilha', but it leaves 'regime' somewhat implicit, does not explain 'nomes', and does not clarify nested fields like 'titular', 'oneroso', 'heranca_doacao', or 'adquirido_na_constancia'. The guidance is too thin for a schema with four top-level parameters and nested objects.

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 legal operation: 'Partilha de bens no divórcio por regime (Código Civil)', then explains it computes the shareable estate, each spouse's share, and equalization payment. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools (e.g., pensão, FGTS, trabalhista) by naming both the resource and the specific legal calculation.

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 gives clear context: use for divorce asset division under a marriage regime, and it instructs the user to mark 'entra_partilha' per asset to override the regime default. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops one step short of full explicit routing.

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