Compor o título executivo (cadeia de decisões)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it explains the prevailing-decision logic (substitutive effect, non-known appeal not substituting, embargoes integrating, annulment with return) and enumerates the eight diagnostic conditions the tool surfaces.

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 front-loaded: it opens with what the matrix is, then lists the diagnostics, then points to reference docs. It is dense with long multi-clause sentences, but the content is information-bearing rather than padded.

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 high-complexity legal-analysis tool with no output schema, the description explains what is produced (the chapter matrix plus per-chapter status/trânsito) and what errors are flagged, and it links to two reference documents. It could say more about the returned shape, but it is largely complete 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?

Both parameters (arquivo_json, especificacao) have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries their meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail — no format, precedence, or mutual-exclusion notes — so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — it 'Monta a matriz de capítulos' (builds the chapter matrix) for the executive title — and scopes it precisely (per installment and criterion, across all instances). No sibling tool deals with composing/validating the título executivo, so an agent can tell it apart from calculo_*, catalogo_*, db_*, and config_* tools without opening a schema.

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 implies the tool is used to build and check the decision chain (its diagnostic list signals a validation use case), but it never states when to use it versus alternatives or any preconditions. No explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use when' guidance is present.

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