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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the core logic: 50% for weekdays, 100% for Sundays/holidays, and DSR reflection. However, it does not specify the output format, rounding behavior, or the exact DSR computation, which would make it fully 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the calculation, the two overtime classes, the DSR reflection, and the parameter list in just three sentences. No filler or redundant content is present.

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?

The description is serviceable for a simple call: it identifies the domain and required inputs. Still, there is no output schema and the DSR calculation logic is only named, not explained, leaving an agent without a fully defined expected result.

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 every parameter. The description adds only the required/optional grouping and the warning to use exact English parameter names, which is helpful but does not go beyond what the schema 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 names a concrete calculation ('Calcula valor de horas extras CLT') and explicitly breaks out the two rates (50% weekdays, 100% Sundays/holidays) and the DSR impact. This makes it easy to distinguish from other salary/labor calculators in the sibling list.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with alternatives such as calculate_adicional_noturno or calculate_hourly_wage. The scope must be inferred from the CLT/overtime wording rather than being stated directly.

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