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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it presents an 'interactive card' with 'detailed discounts and adjustable values' and returns 'current calculator data with sources and assumptions', which provides useful context about return content. However, it doesn't clarify whether results are persisted, what the assumptions/fontes actually contain, or how the 'interactive' nature affects agent usage.

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?

Four efficient sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, requirement, accepted inputs, and return content. Front-loaded with the main capability. No redundancy or filler, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing params separately).

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values in depth, and it does mention sources and assumptions. However, for a tool with a very similar sibling ('calcular_salario_liquido'), the description lacks the differentiation needed to select correctly. The 'interactive card' aspect is mentioned but not clarified for agent context.

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 75%, with 'diasUteisMes' and 'valeTransporteDiario' defaults documented in the schema. The description mentions 'dependentes' and 'vale-transporte' as accepted inputs, adding marginal enumeration value, but doesn't explain units, ranges, or defaults beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the heavy lifting.

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+resource pairing ('Calcula e apresenta salário líquido estimado') and describes the output format (interactive card). However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'calcular_salario_liquido', which appears to be a closely related calculation tool. The distinction between calculation-only versus calculation-plus-display is implied but not 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?

The description says 'Requer salário bruto informado' (prerequisite) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'calcular_salario_liquido'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. An agent seeing both tools would need to guess which is appropriate.

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