Documentos necessários ao cálculo (pedido ao usuário)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is iterative ('repita a cada rodada'), emits a request text ('pedido'), and signals completion via 'completa: true', plus points to a doc resource.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the key role ('PRIMEIRO PASSO'), then scope, then usage modes, then the loop condition. Every sentence carries weight, though the parenthetical document enumeration is somewhat long.

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?

For a 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description explains the return (a 'pedido' text) and the completion signal ('completa': true). It is largely complete, though the exact shape of the returned request is only indirectly described.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by grouping parameters by mode: admissao/demissao/parcelas/documentos_recebidos apply 'sem especificação' while especificacao/arquivo_json are the alternative path, clarifying inter-parameter relationships the schema only hints at.

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 'PRIMEIRO PASSO de todo cálculo' and then states the concrete verb+resource: it determines which documents a case requires, checks month coverage, lists user-only questions, and returns a ready 'pedido' text. This clearly positions it against document-validation and planning siblings like catalogo_validar_documentos and calculo_plano_interpretacao.

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?

It explicitly states two entry modes (with a specification, 'mesmo parcial', or before it using quick answers such as parcelas deferidas and dates) and the loop condition ('Repita a cada rodada até completa: true'). It gives clear context but names no explicit sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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