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

With no annotations to rely on, the description discloses the key behavioral scope: it deducts DAS under Annex III/Factor R or Annex V/minimum pro-labore, plus INSS, IRPF, and accounting fees. It does not specify the exact output shape or rate-table assumptions, but the input-to-result relationship is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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: three sentences with no filler, leading with the calculation purpose and then covering parameters and naming. It is slightly dense as a single long first sentence, but every sentence earns its 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 tax gross-up calculation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the goal, tax components, parameter requirements, and the alternative strategy choices. An explicit statement of the return value format would improve it, but the tool's output is strongly implied by the phrasing 'quanto precisa emitir de nota'.

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 all three parameters. The description adds a convenient summary of required vs. optional parameters and instructs the agent to use exact English names, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it calculates the invoice amount a PJ under Simples Nacional must issue to reach a desired monthly net, explicitly identifying DAS, INSS, IRPF, and accounting fees. It clearly targets a distinct calculation among many sibling calculators, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate the closest siblings.

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 scenario is implied clearly by the purpose: use this for PJ Simples gross-up calculations. It also states required and optional parameters, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related tools like calculate_gross_from_net, calculate_fator_r, or calculate_optimal_prolabore, nor does it give exclusion conditions.

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