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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds meaningful behavioral context by warning that SELIC already includes both correction and interest, by noting the post-09/2024 civil regime (IPCA + legal rate via Lei 14.905/2024), and by stating the return shape: per-installment breakdown and totals.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the output, then the critical legal caveat. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions, the description provides a solid high-level picture and critical legal warnings but still leaves gaps around parameter semantics and calculation defaults. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for edge cases.

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 does add important legal semantics for indice/taxa_juros, especially the SELIC warning and the IPCA + legal rate rule. However, several parameters such as pro_rata, data_calculo, periodicidade_juros, honorarios_tipo, and multa_incide_sobre_juros are not explained or even referenced in the description.

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 performing monetary update and judicial debt liquidation: it corrects installments by an official index and applies interest, penalties, and fees. It is specific about the resource ('parcelas') and distinct from sibling calculation tools by focusing on débito judicial/liquidação.

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 use case is implied by the opening phrase 'Atualização monetária / liquidação de débito judicial', and the legal-regime warnings provide useful context for choosing SELIC vs IPCA. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool over siblings like calculo_indice or calculo_revisional, nor does it state exclusions.

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