Formato da especificação do cálculo

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the return is documentation plus tested examples, which is useful content-scoping context, but discloses nothing further about output size, filtering via "exemplo", or formatting.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by a short imperative directive. The long parenthetical field enumeration is informative but slightly bloated; still, every element earns roughly its place.

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 read-only documentation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what is returned (field coverage and examples) and when to call it. Nothing essential is missing, though it never explains the relationship between the "exemplo" selector and the full-document default.

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% and both parameters (exemplo enum, somente_exemplo boolean) are documented in the schema itself. The description's field list describes the returned document, not the two input parameters, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("Devolve") and resource (the complete documentation of the JSON describing a calculation), and enumerates the covered fields plus tested examples. Clear on its own, but it does not name the closest siblings (e.g., catalogo_enums or db_esquema) to disambiguate which reference/schema tool to pick.

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?

"LEIA ANTES de montar um cálculo" gives an explicit when-to-use trigger tied to the assemble-a-calculation workflow. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when a python/JSON spec is already in hand).

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