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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it discloses that output includes sources and premises and that the estimate is neither a salary proposal nor a substitute for a collective agreement, which a caller needs to interpret results responsibly.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core calculation, followed by the conditional usage mode and the disclaimer. Little waste, though the disclaimer sentence could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still notes it returns fonts and premises. Given the read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the definition supplies enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 is 3, but the description adds semantic value the schema cannot convey: the interaction where omitting salarioBruto while providing UF triggers a reference-based example. This clarifies the otherwise opaque all-optional parameter set.

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 (calcula) and resource (custo mensal e anual estimado de contratação doméstica), making the estimation intent clear. It is distinguishable from calcular_salario_liquido by focusing on hiring cost rather than net pay, though it never names that sibling. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a useful usage mode: passing UF without salarioBruto yields an example using the state reference table. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over calcular_salario_liquido or mostrar_busca_e_custo, leaving alternatives to inference.

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