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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the chaining order, that output is decomposed by origin, and that non-applicable items are returned as skipped with a stated reason. It does not contradict anything. For a stateless calculator, permissions/rate-limit disclosure is irrelevant, so this is solid coverage.

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 punchy front-load ('Fui demitido, e agora?') immediately frames the scenario before the dense clause listing each computation step, and the final sentence cleanly states the output convention. It is long, but the tool is genuinely complex and every clause maps to a distinct computed output, so little feels wasted—though the run-on middle sentence is heavier than ideal.

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 13-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the input drivers, the computation chain, and how results are presented (decomposed by origin, skips with reasons). It stops short of clarifying which fields are optional (e.g., debt/CDI branches), but the core return behavior is communicated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description only echoes a few inputs conceptually (exit type options, contract dates, the debt/CDI comparison) without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. It therefore adds little marginal value.

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 very specific purpose: it chains a multi-step post-dismissal simulation (net severance, unemployment insurance, FGTS withdrawal plus fine, month-by-month balance against expenses, and debt-vs-CDI comparison) driven by contract dates and exit type. An agent can tell it is the comprehensive orchestration tool rather than a single-line calculator. It loses a point because it never names or contrasts the overlapping siblings (calculate_severance, check_severance, calculate_unemployment_insurance).

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?

Usage is implied by the chained nature: this is the 'full picture' tool that combines several calculations, which suggests use when the user wants a complete post-dismissal scenario rather than one figure. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisites, and given the many adjacent severance/unemployment/FGTS tools the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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