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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add algorithmic context. It does: the tool subtracts debts from assets according to regime, computes each spouse's share, handles compensation for imbalance, and lets entra_partilha override the regime default. This is meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single actionable usage note. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 communicates the high-level calculation and output semantics (shareable mass, quota, torna) but omits how the different regimes map to the asset fields and what the regime-dependent defaults are. Given the complex nested schema, no output schema, and no field descriptions, this is an adequate but not complete description for reliable invocation.

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 carry the parameter-meaning burden, but it only explains one nested field (entra_partilha) and names bens, dividas, and regime. Important fields such as oneroso, titular, incomunicavel, heranca_doacao, adquirido_na_constancia, and anterior_casamento are left to inference from their names, which is risky in a legal-calculation tool.

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 states a specific function: computing the shareable mass in a divorce under the Civil Code and determining each spouse's quota, including compensatory torna. It uses a precise verb ('apura') and names the resource ('partilha de bens no divórcio'), which separates it from sibling calculation tools such as calculo_pensao or calculo_aluguel.

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 clearly situates the tool's domain: divorce asset division by marital-property regime, so an agent can tell when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that only the explicit exclusion/alternative part is missing.

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