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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the calculation components and that the result depends on affiliation date, and it flags the minimum-wage floor — useful context. It omits any statement of assumptions or limits: it does not say the projection is purely age-based, that it ignores future contribution accrual or salary growth, or what errors/edge cases (e.g. already eligible, insufficient age) produce.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the calculation components and then the parameter contract, which is the right ordering. It is compact at roughly four sentences with no filler, though the required/optional enumeration partly duplicates what the schema already declares and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and results. It names the four result components (retirement date/value, minimum age, minimum time, percentage of average, wage floor), which gives an agent a reasonable picture of the return. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or how the projection handles future years, leaving a modest gap for a no-output-schema 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the gender enum and the affiliated_before_reform transition rules — this sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the required/optional split and adds the practical instruction to use exactly these English parameter names, but adds no semantics beyond the schema's own parameter 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource — projecting retirement by age under EC 103/2019 — and enumerates the concrete outputs (minimum age, minimum contribution time, percentage of the average, minimum-wage floor). It is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling calculate_transicao_aposentadoria, which likely covers the same transition rules, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate between the two from the text.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use this to project age-based retirement under the 2019 reform), and the description notes which parameters are mandatory versus optional. It never states when this tool should be chosen over alternatives such as calculate_transicao_aposentaria or calculate_inss_autonomo, nor does it state exclusions (e.g. that it covers only age-based, not time-of-contribution, retirement).

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