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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it compensates well: it discloses the internal pipeline (building the CLT package, computing Simples net with automatic Fator R vs pro-labore choice) and the full result structure (tie note, minimum invoice, decision tree, premises, weakest link). It does not list limitations up front, but it is transparent that assumptions exist and are returned with the answer.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then enumerates method and outputs without filler. Every clause contains decision-relevant detail, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it tells the agent what inputs are compared, what calculation choices happen automatically, and exactly what artifacts will be returned. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying current_clt_gross to the 'pacote CLT' construction and proposed_pj_invoice to the 'nota proposta' liquidation in Simples, and by implicitly mapping accounting_fee/dependents to premises of the comparison.

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 the action ('avalia uma proposta de trabalho PJ contra o emprego CLT atual') and specifies exact outputs: CLT monthly package, take-home under Simples, tie point, and minimum invoice. It is highly specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling compare_clt_vs_pj, so it does not fully satisfy the sibling-distinction criterion.

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 'vale a pena?' phrasing implies this is the tool for a PJ-vs-CLT decision, and the calculation steps make the intended scenario clear. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of compare_clt_vs_pj or calculate_fator_r when...' guidance, so the usage context is implied rather than stated.

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