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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds meaningful process detail: the three-phase sentencing algorithm, the role of attenuating/aggravating circumstances, and configurable fractions, which clarifies what the tool does internally.

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 and then expands on the three-phase method. No wasted words; every clause adds domain-specific 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?

Despite the specific legal framework, the description is incomplete for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to structure multiple causas_aumento/causas_diminuicao items, or the exact meaning of each fraction, leaving an agent to guess at invocation details.

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 must compensate, and it partially does by referencing the legal concepts that map to parameters (agravantes, atenuantes, causas de aumento/diminuição). However, it does not explicitly define each parameter—particularly fracao_fase1 and fracao_fase2—leaving ambiguity about which fraction applies to which phase.

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 criminal sentencing dosimetry calculator based on the three-phase system of art. 68 CP, specifying each phase with legal references. This distinguishes it from sibling calculation tools like calculo_aluguel or calculo_fgts by its unique legal domain.

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 provides clear context: it is for calculating criminal penalties under Brazilian law, which strongly implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving exclusion to inference.

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