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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so by disclosing the formula: the contractual penalty (default of 3 rents) prorated by the remaining months. It does not mention output format, rounding, or edge cases like months_fulfilled exceeding contract_months, but the core behavioral model is clear.

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?

Two sentences carry the full picture: what is calculated, the legal rule, the required/optional parameters, and exact naming instructions. There is no filler or restatement of schema fields.

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 four-parameter calculator with fully documented schema fields, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: formula, defaults, and required parameters. It does not describe the return value or boundary behavior, but those gaps are minor given the schema coverage and simplicity.

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 documents each parameter's meaning and defaults. The description reinforces required/optional status and instructs the agent to use the exact English names, which is useful but adds 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 starts with the specific verb 'Calcula' and a precise resource: the early-termination penalty of a rental contract. It explains the exact legal basis and proportional-calculation logic, which clearly sets it apart from sibling calculators such as calculate_rent_adjustment.

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 context — early termination of a rental contract under art. 4º of the Lei do Inquilinato — and explicitly labels required vs optional parameters. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the domain-specific context is strong enough to guide selection.

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