Cartões de ponto transcritos -> jornadas

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact output field returned and a rich list of validations (missing days, odd markings, overlapping/impossibly long shifts, interjornada under 11h, invariant times under Súmula 338).

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?

The description is two dense but well-structured sentences with no filler: first the input forms and return value, then the validation checks. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 nested-input, no-output-schema transformation tool, the description gives enough context to invoke it: required day markings, accepted shapes, output field, and validation behavior. It could say more about how validation issues are surfaced in the return object, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantic detail not present in the schema: it enumerates the accepted occurrence values (FOLGA, FERIAS, FALTA, ATESTADO, FERIADO, DSR) and shows the three accepted day-record shapes. It does not add much for the periodo or dias_sem_marcacao parameters, but those are already described in the schema.

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?

The description states a specific transformation: it receives daily time-card markings and returns apuracaoCartaoPonto.jornadas, then lists the anomalies it reports. This is far more than a restatement of the title, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling calculo_apurar_cartao_ponto tool.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it never names a sibling as an alternative or prerequisite. Usage is only faintly inferable from the input/output description, so the agent must guess how it fits into the broader calculo workflow.

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