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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool considers opportunity cost, appreciation, and total costs, and warns to use exact parameter names. However, it does not describe the output format, assumptions, or that it is a read-only calculation, leaving part of the behavioral profile undisclosed.

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 a compact paragraph with the purpose front-loaded, followed by required and optional parameter lists, ending with a clear instruction on naming. There is no filler or redundant elaboration; every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the comparison result or return format. It covers inputs and methodology but does not describe what the output contains, which an agent would need to interpret results. The use of Portuguese, while likely intentional, may also limit accessibility.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented with units, defaults, and constraints. The description lists parameter names and required/optional status, which largely duplicates the schema. The note to use exactly these names adds operational guidance but not deeper parameter meaning.

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 states the tool's purpose: comparing renting vs buying a property, and explicitly lists the factors considered (opportunity cost, appreciation, total costs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_rent_affordability or calculate_financing, which address narrower aspects.

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 provides clear context by listing required and optional parameters and instructing to 'use exactly these names', which guides correct invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the comparison-focused wording makes the intended use obvious alongside the sibling tools.

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