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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool computes and which rule it applies, which covers the main behavioral expectations. However, it does not disclose any limitations, assumptions beyond the rule, or the nature of the return values (e.g., that it is a projection, not an official calculation). This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no waste: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second lists required parameters, the third enforces naming. The most important information 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does most of the work and does it well: it states the rule, the inputs, and what will be projected. The main omission is a description of the output format or return values, but the phrase 'quando e com quanto' implies the expected result. This is close to complete for a calculator-style tool.

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 adds meaningful value by explicitly warning to use the exact parameter names in English, which prevents translation/localization errors in an otherwise Portuguese-language description. It also lists the required parameters, reinforcing the schema's required field array.

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 uses a specific verb ('Projeta') with a clear resource (retirement under the permanent EC 103/2019 rule), and enumerates what the projection covers: minimum age, minimum contribution time, percentage of average salary, and the minimum wage floor. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'calculate_transicao_aposentadoria' by explicitly naming the permanent rule.

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 clearly identifies the intended use case: projecting retirement under the permanent EC 103/2019 rule. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternative calculators, but the rule-specific context is enough for an agent to select it appropriately. The instruction to use exact English parameter names is also a useful usage cue.

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