calcular_proximo_prazo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the implementation of legal articles (business days, start on next day, suspension during recess), offering algorithmic transparency. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or any error conditions.

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 concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the tool's function, and the second lists relevant legal articles. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has a complex purpose (deadline calculation with legal rules), and the description covers the algorithmic logic. With an output schema present for return format and full parameter documentation, it is mostly complete, though usage guidelines could be more explicit.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool calculates the next procedural deadline in business days using the forensic calendar, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_processos_monitorados (list) and buscar_processo_por_numero (search by number).

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 implies usage for calculating deadlines but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. While sibling tools are distinct, the lack of explicit guidance prevents a higher score.

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