Calcular Proximo Prazo

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the legal rules applied (art. 219 úteis, art. 224 termo inicial, art. 220 recesso 20/dez–20/jan). It does not state that omitting data_intimacao_iso triggers an external DataJud lookup, nor anything about failure modes when the process or tribunal calendar is unavailable.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the legal basis enumerated compactly afterward. Every line earns its place; the only minor cost is that the statutory citations are terse enough that an agent gets the rule names but not the resulting counting semantics.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return-value explanation is not needed. The description covers the calculation basis well; the remaining gap is operational context — the implicit DataJud dependency and what happens when the deadline computation cannot be resolved — for a tool with five parameters and external calendar rules.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the fallback behavior of uf, tipo_ato and data_intimacao_iso. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calcula o próximo prazo processual em dias úteis com calendário forense.' That is unambiguous and clearly separates it from the retrieval-oriented siblings (buscar_processo_por_numero, listar_movimentacoes, etc.), none of which perform deadline computation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature — an agent needing a deadline date will reach for this — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., a process must exist in DataJud), and no routing advice relative to siblings such as listar_intimacoes.

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