Validar especificação do cálculo

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial extra context: the two validation layers, the concrete audit checks (payment used twice, salary outside validity, work during leave, duplicate base), the 'não verificado' fallback, and the fact that it returns errors/warnings/summary without side effects.

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 key scope statement, and the detailed audit-check enumeration is informative rather than redundant. It is dense and somewhat long, but every clause conveys a distinct validation behavior.

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 and a nested-object parameter, the description carries the burden well, explaining the audit field, the error/warning distinction, and the summary of what will be assembled. Return-shape detail is at a useful high level rather than fully specified.

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%, so both parameters (arquivo_json and especificacao) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond noting the spec format source, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (validate) and resource (calculation specification), and immediately delineates scope by declaring it does NOT generate a file nor touch PJe-Calc, which cleanly separates it from siblings like calculo_gerar_pjc and calculo_criar.

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 opening clause 'SEM gerar arquivo nem tocar no PJe-Calc' establishes the pre-generation validation context and implicitly routes the agent away from generation tools. However, it never names the alternative (e.g., calculo_gerar_pjc) or states an explicit when-not condition, so a slight gap remains.

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