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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by exposing the exact formula logic: minimum rent-to-income ratio and deduction of condo/IPTU/utilities from the real budget. It does not disclose the return shape or behavior on insufficient income, but the core calculator behavior is transparent.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose and calculation rules, then list parameters and naming requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 fully explains inputs and the calculation approach, but there is no output schema and no mention of the return format. Because two calculation modes are described, it is ambiguous whether the tool returns a single value or a breakdown, which an agent needs to know to use the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter; the description adds only the explicit required/optional split and the instruction to use exact English names. This is useful but adds limited semantic meaning 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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Calcula quanto de aluguel cabe numa renda') and pins down the exact rules used (3x income rule and real budget after condo/IPTU/utilities). This separates it from rent_adjustment and rent_vs_buy siblings even without naming them.

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 gives a clear context for when the calculation applies (Brazilian market rule and real household budget), but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions sibling calculators. Usage is implied by the scenario rather than explicitly guided.

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