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, and the description still adds meaningful context: it returns sources and assumptions, and the estimate is neither a salary proposal nor a substitute for a collective agreement. That caveat is exactly the kind of trust/limitation context annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool computes, then the UF-only edge case, then the disclaimer. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 read-only calculator with an output schema and full param documentation, the description covers purpose, the fallback input mode, and result limitations. Slightly incomplete only in that it does not characterize the basis of the estimate (which statutory components beyond salary/transport are included), though sources are said to be returned.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying the conditional relationship between uf and salarioBruto (UF alone triggers a reference-based example), which the schema's 0-required-parameter structure does not express. Transport and business-days defaults are left to the schema, which 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 and resource: computes monthly and annual estimated cost of domestic hiring given gross salary and transport. It is distinguishable in substance from calcular_salario_liquido (employer cost vs. net salary), but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Explicitly documents a non-obvious invocation mode: passing only UF without salarioBruto yields an example using the state reference from the site's table. That is real guidance beyond the schema. It stops short of 5 because it gives no exclusions or explicit pointer to sibling tools for related calculations.

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