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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses rates (20%, 11%, 5%), the retirement implications per plan, and that the output includes the GPS code. It does not cover every edge case, but for a calculation tool this is solid coverage.

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: the core purpose and rates come first, followed by output detail and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calculation logic, plan options, output hint (GPS code), and parameter requirements. Combined with the rich parameter schema, the agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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 adds value by identifying both parameters as optional and by stressing the exact English names to use, which prevents locale-related invocation 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Calcula o INSS mensal do autônomo/contribuinte individual' and enumerates the three plan types with their rates and retirement implications. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like get_inss_table or calculate_mei_tax.

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 invocation context by naming the optional parameters and instructing the agent to 'Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the tool's purpose makes the appropriate use case evident.

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