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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it uses today's INSS/IRRF tables or a past table via reference_date, and it clarifies required vs optional inputs. It doesn't mention return format or rounding, but the core calculation 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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The main function is stated first, followed by the historical nuance and the parameter usage note, all of which earn their place.

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 fully documented schema parameters, the description covers the core behavior, the historical-table feature, and parameter naming guidance. With no output schema, it could have described the return structure, but the net salary outcome is strongly implied by the tool name and description, so this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the required/optional classification, instructing the agent to use exact English parameter names, and giving a concrete reference_date example ('refazer a folha de novembro de 2025'). This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 resource ('salário líquido CLT no Brasil') and identifies the key deductions (INSS and IRRF), making the tool's core function unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as calculate_gross_from_net, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: computing net CLT salary, including a historical use case via reference_date. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can correctly select this tool over salary-related siblings.

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