Plano de interpretação (para o usuário aprovar)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the output is markdown, it must be shown to the user for approval, and it returns the contract hash to be approved. No contradiction with annotations.

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-loads the core action and the required approval step, and the long content enumeration is informative rather than redundant. Slightly dense, but every clause identifies real plan content or a real workflow constraint.

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 appropriately discloses what is returned (markdown plan plus the contract hash). The nested especificacao parameter is delegated to calculo_modelo_json for its format, and the approval workflow is spelled out, leaving little missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'a partir do contrato e da especificação' loosely implies inputs but does not map to arquivo_json vs. especificacao or explain their mutual exclusivity/alternative nature, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 ('Gera o plano de interpretação legível (markdown)') and enumerates the exact contents the plan covers (processo/fase, matriz do título, parcelas, critérios, eventos, premissas, pendências). The workflow framing ('peça a aprovação ANTES de calcular') makes it clearly distinct from calculo_aprovar_plano and the calcular-family siblings.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: show the plan to the user and request approval BEFORE calculating. This is clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not name the sibling tools (calculo_aprovar_plano, calculo_gerar_pjc) that carry out the next steps.

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