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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses currency ('Atualizado 2026') and enumerates computed components, which is useful. Still, it does not mention assumptions (e.g., 8% contribution rate), limitations, or whether results are estimates, leaving the behavior only partly transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: what is calculated, the 2026 update, required/optional parameters, and the naming caution.

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 3-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description lists the expected outputs and parameter requirements, which is decent. But it omits relevant boundary conditions, assumptions about FGTS rules, and any pointer to related tools, leaving some context gaps.

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 salary, months_worked, and include_anniversary_withdrawal. The description reinforces required/optional status and naming conventions but adds little 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 uses a specific verb ('Calcula') with a clear resource (FGTS) and enumerates the exact outputs: saldo, rendimento, saque-aniversário, and multa rescisória de 40%. This level of specificity distinguishes it from other calculate_* siblings, even without naming them.

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 clearly states which parameters are required versus optional and insists on exact English names, which helps invocation. However, it does not guide the agent on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings like calculate_antecipacao_fgts or calculate_custo_demissao; selection context is only implied.

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