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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does add domain context: the margin is computed over available income rather than gross, and category drives margin/term rules. However, it never states that this is a side-effect-free calculation, nor how results are presented or what inputs cause failures.

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?

Front-loaded with what is computed, then the parameter list, all in compact sentences with no filler. Slightly repetitive in that the required/optional enumeration largely duplicates what the schema already marks.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the outputs (available limit, installment, fit check). It is nearly complete for a pure calculator, though it omits how the outputs are keyed or the failure case when the requested amount does not fit.

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%, including detailed per-parameter notes on categories, rates and income, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates which parameters are required versus optional and instructs the agent to use the exact English names, adding no semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource (calcula empréstimo consignado) and enumerates the concrete outputs: how much the bank releases within the margin, the installment, and whether a requested amount fits the margin and the category term. 'Consignado' is a distinct product that separates it from generic siblings like calculate_installment or compare_loans.

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?

Usage is implied by the described outputs and by the note that leaving requested_amount at zero yields just the ceiling, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as compare_loans. An agent can infer the use case but gets no guidance on choosing between this and adjacent loan tools.

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