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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the calculation logic around margin, category term, and fit checking, and adds a strict instruction to use exact English parameter names. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a pure read-only simulation or how invalid or out-of-margin inputs are handled.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and outputs, then clearly groups required and optional parameters, and ends with a critical naming instruction.

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 5-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the calculation domain, required versus optional inputs, and the three conceptual outputs. It does not provide an explicit output structure or edge-case behavior, but the rich input schema and prose are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret typical results.

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 every parameter already has semantics in the schema, including rate format and category-specific margins. The description adds only required/optional grouping and the 'use exact English names' hint, which is helpful but minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Calcula' and the resource 'empréstimo consignado', then lists three concrete outputs: amount released within the margin, installment, and whether a requested amount fits margin and category term. This clearly conveys the tool's role and distinguishes it from generic loan/financing calculators, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 intended use case is implied by the domain 'empréstimo consignado' and the parameter requirements, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. It does separate required and optional parameters, which offers some invocation guidance but no alternative-routing.

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