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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the core calculation and comparison to IPCA, but it does not disclose the exact formula, output structure, or how edge cases like negative inflation 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 compact and well organized, leading with the core purpose, then the expected outcome, then the required parameter names. No sentence is wasted.

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 covers the tool's purpose and required inputs, but since there is no output schema, it does not clarify the return format or the direction of the inflation adjustment. For a simple calculator this is acceptable, but additional detail about the result would make it more complete.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by explicitly warning to use the exact English parameter names, which helps an agent avoid localization errors when invoking the tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it calculates real salary by discounting inflation and indicates whether the adjustment kept pace with IPCA or lost purchasing power. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from closely related siblings such as calculate_raise_vs_inflation or calculate_inflation_adjustment.

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 through the outcome description: checking whether a salary adjustment kept up with IPCA. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it.

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