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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does so reasonably: it says the calculation assumes continuous contributions, labels the benefit 'estimated', and frames the tool as a simulation rather than a real-world action. It could be more explicit about output units or lack of side effects, but the key behavioral assumptions are disclosed.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the function and scope, the second describes outputs and the continuous-contribution assumption, and the third gives parameter-level usage guidance. 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?

For a complex calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output types (rule fit, remaining time, estimated benefit), the key assumption (continuous contribution), and the required parameters. It does not specify output units or the behavior when average_salary is omitted, though that latter detail exists in the schema.

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 a valuable instruction beyond the schema: 'Use exatamente estes nomes, em inglês', which tells the agent not to translate property names. It also reinforces required vs optional parameters, though the schema already defines those.

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 specific verb ('Simula') and a precise resource ('as regras de transição da aposentadoria (EC 103/2019)'), then enumerates the exact rule types covered. It clearly distinguishes itself from the generic sibling calculate_retirement by narrowing to transition rules and named sub-rules.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when someone needs to simulate EC 103/2019 transition rules and know which rule applies plus remaining time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is stated plainly enough to route an agent correctly.

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