Pendências do cálculo (validação do PJe-Calc)

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 real value by clarifying that it opens the calculation but explicitly does NOT liquidate (a state-change boundary) and by classifying output as errors (which block liquidation) vs alerts.

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 dense sentence followed by a short clause, front-loaded with the action and constraint. Quoted UI labels are slightly heavy but justified since they pin the exact screen and panel.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does name the two result categories (erros and alertas) and what errors mean. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned list or behavior when the calculation is unavailable, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter (id_calculo) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or value guidance beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: opens the calculation in PJe-Calc and reads the "Pendências do Cálculo" panel of the Liquidar screen, explicitly "SEM liquidar". This distinguishes it from calculo_liquidar, but the sibling calculo_validar also exists and the description's claim to be "a validação oficial do aplicativo" does not disambiguate between the two.

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?

Clear context: use this to inspect pendencies without performing the liquidation. The "SEM liquidar" qualifier implicitly tells the agent not to use this when actual liquidation is wanted (calculo_liquidar), but it never names the alternative or states explicit exclusions.

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