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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, closed-world calculation, so the safety profile is covered. The sentence 'a conta é feita por código, com fundamento e premissas' adds some behavioral context (the result carries a legal basis and stated premises), but it doesn't say what the return looks like or that mode drives which inputs matter. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is an adequate 3.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is calculated and then the calculation basis. No filler, though the second sentence is vague enough that it earns only partial credit.

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 5-parameter, all-required calculator with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description should explain the mode switch and the income/percent interaction. Instead it leaves the agent to guess which parameters apply in which mode, making miscalls likely.

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 0% across 5 required parameters, including an enum for mode, a percent, an income that appears nullable, and two YYYY-MM month fields. The description says nothing about any of these - not that mode selects between minimum_wage and income, not that income is irrelevant in minimum_wage mode, not the meaning of firstMonth/lastMonth. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (alimony value) and the two bases (minimum wages or percentage of income), which is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly separate itself from the sibling alimony_debt_calculate, so an agent must infer that this computes the ongoing obligation rather than arrears.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as alimony_debt_calculate for overdue amounts. The agent is left to infer the call context from the name alone.

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