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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the calculation behavior: it computes discounts and embedded interest using TIR. It clearly frames the tool as an evaluative calculation. It could say more about expected output format or assumptions, but it goes well beyond a bare 'calculates debt'.

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: the first explains what the tool does, the second gives decision utility, and the third lists required parameters. It is tightly packed with meaningful content and no filler.

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?

The description covers what is computed, the method (TIR), and the decision context, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, so a few words on the exact shape of the result would make it fully complete, but the current coverage is strong for a numeric calculator.

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 each parameter's type, range, and meaning. The description adds only the instruction to use exactly these names, which is useful but not additional semantic depth. Baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Avalia'), a clear resource ('proposta de acordo de dívida'), and the exact outputs: real discount for cash and installment, and embedded interest via IRR. It also grounds the purpose with a realistic context (Serasa Limpa Nome), making it easy to distinguish from generic debt or loan calculators.

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 gives clear decision context: it is the tool to decide whether to save money, pay in installments, or seek cheaper credit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so guidance on when not to use it is left implicit rather than explicit.

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