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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool finds 'the most relevant' calculator but never explains what that means, how relevance is determined, or what the returned output looks like. Core behavioral traits such as whether it returns a name, a link, a ranking, or a summary are omitted.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the object, with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word earns its place, and the core search intent is immediately understandable.

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 tool is simple, has one fully documented parameter, and no output schema. However, because no output schema exists, the description should clarify what the agent will receive, and it only vaguely indicates a calculator will be found. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps around result format and failure behavior.

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?

The schema already documents the topic parameter with examples and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the topic relates to finding a relevant calculator, which is mild reinforcement rather than genuinely new semantic information about the parameter.

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 ('Encontra') and a specific resource ('a calculadora financeira mais relevante no Falazuki'), making its search intent unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many calculate_* siblings by describing a discovery/recommendation action rather than a calculation.

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 phrase 'para um determinado tema' implies the tool is for finding a calculator when the user names a topic, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over directly using a calculate_* sibling. No alternative tools are named and no exclusion criteria are given, so the usage guidance remains only implied.

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