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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies that this is a calculation tool based on expenses and profile and notes the required versus optional parameters, but it does not disclose underlying assumptions (e.g., how profile maps to target months, whether monthly_return compounds) or what the return payload contains.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by parameter requirements. The explicit reminder about using English parameter names is useful and earns its place, though listing all optional parameters partly duplicates the schema.

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 gives the core purpose and identifies required/optional inputs, which is reasonably complete for a simple calculator with no output schema. However, it omits important details such as the units for the 'time' output and the profile-based multiplier logic, so an agent could not fully anticipate the computed result without invoking the tool.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds value by naming the required and optional parameters and by telling the agent to use exact English names, but it does not add deeper semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Calcula'), a resource ('reserva de emergência'), and the computed outputs (ideal value and time to build). It distinguishes the tool from financial-independence or investment-return calculators by its explicit emergency-fund focus, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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 when to use the tool—when an emergency fund value or funding timeline is needed—by specifying inputs like monthly expenses and profile. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for related scenarios.

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