Prazos da lei (catálogo)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the coverage scope (CPC, CLT, Juizados) and the shape of the answer (days, counting rule, legal basis). It does not mention result limits, empty-result behavior, or how counting varies by branch, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by concrete query examples. The four examples are slightly long but they directly serve query formulation for a term-matching tool, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return content (dias, forma de contagem, base legal) and the doctrinal coverage (CPC, CLT, Juizados), which is what an agent needs to trust the answer. Minor gaps remain around result limits and what happens when a termo is not found, but nothing essential is missing.

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 all four parameters including both enums (quem, ramo) and the limite bounds. The description contributes only extra sample values for termo and says nothing about how ramo or quem constrain results beyond what the schema states, so 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?

States a specific verb ("Procura no catálogo") and a specific resource ("prazos processuais") and lists exactly what comes back: day count, counting method, and legal basis. The word "catálogo" plus the term examples implicitly separate it from calcular_prazo, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 example terms ("contestação", "apelação", "embargos de declaração", "recurso ordinário") show how to phrase a query, which is real usage help. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over calcular_prazo (apply a deadline to a case) or contar_dias_uteis (count days), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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