Cálculo Externo (conta homologada feita fora do PJe-Calc)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it drives the interface screens, PJe-Calc converts parcels into a liquidated calculation on save, it exports a .PJC, and with "execucao" it mutates the copy via calculo_atualizar. This discloses side effects the annotations alone would not.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then proceeds through process, field groups, docs reference, and export/update behavior. Dense but each clause carries information; the long enumerated lists are the only mild bloat.

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 complex tool that automates a GUI and takes an underspecified nested object, the description is fairly complete: it names the screens, the field groups, an example reference (calculo_modelo_json "externo") and a docs URI. With no output schema, it still describes the side effects on disk and on the existing copy.

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 nominally 100%, but the calculoExterno object is only typed as additionalProperties:{} with no inner structure, so the schema explains almost nothing about its contents. The description compensates by enumerating the expected fields (processo, dataBase, parametros, creditos, descontos, outrosDebitos, debitosReclamante, execucao), adding meaning the schema lacks.

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+resource ("Cria no PJe-Calc um Cálculo Externo") and immediately differentiates it as the approved account computed outside the app (perito, contadoria, acordo), distinguishing it from the sibling regular calculation creators. An agent can identify the purpose and its niche without opening a schema.

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 conveys the scenario (external, homologated calculation consolidated at the base date) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over calculo_criar/calculo_importar_pjc or any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied through the scenario rather than stated as routing guidance.

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