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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the core behavior: reverse calculation from net to gross while discounting INSS and IRRF. Minor gaps remain around rounding, cap limits, and handling of infeasible inputs, but the main computational behavior is 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 short and front-loaded: first the core purpose, then the sibling distinction and use cases, then the required/optional parameters. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

For a simple calculator with a complete parameter schema, the description covers purpose, usage, sibling distinction, and parameter names. The main gap is that there is no explicit statement about the return/output format, and edge cases such as impossible net targets are not mentioned, but the tool is still easy to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description usefully restates required vs optional parameters and insists on exact English names, but it adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for types, defaults, bounds, or date format.

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') and names the resource: gross salary needed to achieve a target net salary after INSS and IRRF. It also explicitly says 'É o inverso do calculate_net_salary', which clearly differentiates it from the most closely related sibling tool.

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 names the alternative tool directly and gives concrete scenarios: negotiating a proposal ('quero R$ 5.000 na mão') and telling an employer how much to register in the work card. This gives an agent clear when-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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