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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the calculation formula and the subtraction of existing assets, which is useful. However, it does not state the output format, units of the result, rounding behavior, or what happens when required values are missing or invalid.

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 first sentence explains the method and formula, and the second lists required/optional parameters. It is efficient, though the parameter list slightly overlaps with schema information.

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 calculation tool with a formula fully explained and all parameters documented in the schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. The main gap is the lack of explicit output/return-value context, which is not fatal because the formula defines what will be computed.

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 fully documents each parameter's meaning. The description only repeats the parameter names and required/optional status, adding little semantic value 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 states a specific verb and resource: it calculates life insurance need via the DIME method. It names the exact formula components (dívidas, renda, saldo do financiamento, educação, menos patrimônio), which clearly distinguishes it from the many calculate_* siblings.

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?

It clearly identifies which parameters are mandatory (monthly_income) and which are optional, and instructs the agent to use exact English parameter names. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the DIME-specific domain and parameter requirements make when-to-use reasonably clear.

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