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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about the calculation approach: recomputing old and current net salaries from INSS/IRRF tables, applying accumulated inflation, and returning real gain/loss plus break-even gross. It does not mention failure modes or data-coverage caveats, but none are suggested by the calculator's read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences carry a lot of specific information without padding: the first front-loads the core purpose and output, the second gives an actionable parameter checklist. 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 5-parameter financial calculator with no output schema, the description explains the key return values (real % and R$/month gain/loss, break-even gross) and the inputs. It could be more explicit about the output object shape and coverage/error behavior, but schema already documents formats and IPCA source.

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 only the required/optional distinction and the instruction to keep English parameter names, which does not introduce semantic detail beyond the schema. No new meaning about formats, units, or derivation is added.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource pair (compares a salary raise against period inflation) and adds precise scope: net value, INSS/IRRF tables, real purchasing-power gain/loss in % and R$/month, plus break-even gross. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings such as calculate_required_raise or calculate_real_salary, though the 'no LÍQUIDO' and table-based methodology strongly imply a unique calculation.

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 conveys a clear use case ('útil para saber quanto falta pedir') and states required vs optional parameters and exact English names. It does not, however, name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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