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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds useful behavioral detail about the calculation process: pena-base, intermediate phase, and definitive phase, plus configurable fractions. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 a single dense sentence organized by the three phases, with legal citations and no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and remains highly scannable for an agent.

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?

Given the complexity of a nine-parameter legal calculation and the absence of an output schema, the description provides strong algorithmic and legal context. It explains the progressive calculation structure and notes configurable fractions. Minor gaps remain around expected return format and precise fraction encoding, but the core invocation semantics are largely inferable.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps phases to legal concepts like circunstâncias judiciais, atenuantes/agravantes, and causas de aumento/diminuição, which align with parameter names. However, it does not explain fraction format, the exact role of fracao_fase1/fracao_fase2, or how circunstancias_desfavoraveis should be quantified.

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 domain and operation: 'Dosimetria da pena' under the three-phase system of art. 68 CP. It describes each phase, making the tool distinguishable from sibling calculation tools by its criminal-sentencing focus. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calcula' but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 (art. 68 CP, Súmula 231 STJ) implies this is for criminal sentence dosimetry, which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions. No sibling comparison or routing information is provided.

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