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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful note that the result comes with a legal basis and premises ('fundamento e premissas'), which tells the agent the output is reasoned rather than a bare number. However, it discloses nothing about input validation, limits, or response shape beyond that hint.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Sizing is appropriate for what little it says, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 tool with 5 required parameters, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps: how sex and contributionYears affect the RMI, what coefficientRule values mean, and what the returned 'fundamento e premissas' comprise. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without opening 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 description coverage is only 20%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It only maps the 'salaries' concept via 'salários de contribuição'; the required parameters sex, contributionYears, coefficientRule (with its general/full/null enum), and startDate (DIB) receive no explanation of their meaning or effect on the calculation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: computes the initial monthly benefit income (RMI) for an INSS benefit from contribution salaries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like retirement_rules_calculate or benefit_arrears_calculate. It is not tautological, though it stops short of explicitly naming the contrasting siblings.

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 use this versus alternative tools, no prerequisites (e.g., that the case data or salaries must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer positioning from the name alone among 24 calculation siblings.

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