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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the marginal-bracket behavior, the combined effect of INSS, IRRF and Lei 15.270, gives an illustrative cost example, and enumerates the output fields. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a calculator.

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 sentences cover purpose, tax context, outputs, and parameters without filler. The key behavioral insight is front-loaded and 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?

The description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains what the tool does, why taxes matter, which parameters are needed, and what is returned. It leaves some ambiguity about the exact response shape and what the percentage is relative to, but this is minor given the strength of the rest.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add a required/optional grouping and the warning to use exact English names, but it does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the already-complete schema descriptions.

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?

States exactly what the tool computes: the raise amount needed to achieve a target net monthly increase, with the marginal-tax mechanism made explicit. The reference to INSS, IRRF, and Lei 15.270 distinguishes it from generic salary or gross-to-net sibling tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use it when you need the gross raise that yields a desired net increase. It also lists required/optional parameters and instructs the agent to use exact English parameter names. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 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.