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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come 'with fundamento e premissas' (grounds and premises), hinting at a legally-sourced output, but provides no detail on precision, rounding, or what the response contains.

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 two-sentence format is front-loaded and waste-free, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's 8 required parameters and legal domain 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?

With 8 required parameters, 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description needed to carry significant explanatory weight about inputs and result shape. Instead it remains at a marketing-level summary, leaving an agent unable to confidently populate fields like referenceDate or citationDate.

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 only 25%: just startDate (DIB) and endDate (DIP) are documented in the schema. The description explains none of the 8 parameters, leaving monthlyBenefit, benefitType, payments, filingDate, citationDate and referenceDate entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 legal-financial resource (INSS benefit arrears, month by month, with correction and interest) and states the computation is code-based. The implicit verb 'calculate' plus the resource makes it distinguishable from siblings like initial_benefit_calculate and retirement_rules_calculate, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 indication of when to choose this tool over neighbors such as initial_benefit_calculate, dosimetry_calculate, or undue_charges_calculate, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage from the title alone.

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