simular_custas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: simulation is non-committal (does not create, link, or pay). This is meaningful and prevents misuse. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description adds some value but not comprehensive transparency.

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, succinct sentence that immediately states the core action and resource, then clarifies the boundary with a negation. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 is adequate for a simple simulation tool, but it lacks parameter semantics and any mention of prerequisites or error conditions. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable. However, given the tool is part of a larger set with siblings, there is no context on when to choose this over alternatives, making it somewhat incomplete.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The input schema has titles like 'Classe' and 'Valor Causa', which give minimal cues, but the description adds nothing about parameter meaning, format, or constraints. For a 3-parameter tool, the description should compensate for the schema gap, but it does not.

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 action ('Simula' – simulates) and the resource ('taxa e custas no SICAJUD' – fees and costs in SICAJUD). It explicitly lists what it does NOT do (create, bind, or pay a fee), which helps delineate its scope. However, it does not name any specific sibling tool to differentiate from, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context: use this tool when you need to estimate fees/costs without executing an actual payment or binding action. It gives no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or what alternative tool to choose (e.g., siblings like 'pesquisar_classes_custas' might be related). The negation hints at exclusions but does not name alternatives.

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