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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical calculation behavior: it returns per-installment details and totals, and warns that SELIC already includes both correction and interest and that post-09/2024 civil cases use IPCA plus the legal rate. These are non-obvious behavioral rules an agent must know, and nothing contradicts 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, front-loaded, and information-dense: purpose first, return behavior second, and critical legal warnings last. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema, so the return-behavior note ('Retorna detalhamento por parcela e totais') is useful, and the legal warnings add essential domain context. However, for a complex 11-parameter calculation tool with zero schema descriptions, the description still leaves too many parameter behaviors implicit to be fully complete on its own.

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%, and with 11 parameters the description needed to compensate. It broadly mentions indices, interest, penalties, and fees, but does not explain the required 'parcelas' structure or key optional parameters like pro_rata, honorarios_tipo, multa_incide_sobre_juros, periodicidade_juros, and data_calculo. This leaves significant semantic gaps for correct invocation.

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 names a specific operation: monetary correction of installment payments using an official index and application of interest, penalties, and fees for judicial debt settlement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculo_indice or other calculation tools, even without naming an alternative explicitly.

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 clearly states the context: 'Atualização monetária / liquidação de débito judicial' and includes legal-regime cautions that affect calculation. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a specific alternative tool, but the intended scenario is well defined.

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