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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains what the tool computes but does not disclose assumptions, formulas, or what happens if optional parameters are omitted. This is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines purpose and outputs, the second gives parameter names and usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and input expectations reasonably well. It does not detail return format or behavioral caveats, but the high schema coverage compensates partially.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly separating required from optional parameters and instructing the agent to use exact English parameter names, which helps avoid translation or naming mistakes.

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?

Description states the tool simulates consórcio and enumerates concrete outputs: monthly installment, total cost with admin fee, and comparison with financing. This is precise and distinguishes it from finance-only siblings like calculate_financing.

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 implies usage through 'Simula consórcio' and lists required/optional parameters, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over calculate_financing or compare_loans, nor does it provide exclusions. The routing is left to inference.

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