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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the output shape (foundation and formula for each parcel plus a total), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about how missing or null inputs (salary, FGTS balance, timecards) affect the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope; the mention of legal basis and formula is efficient. The trailing 'Use os valores devolvidos nos pedidos líquidos' is vague enough that it spends words without adding clarity.

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 14-parameter calculation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return content but omits parameter guidance and the timecards-versus-overtime dependency (left to the schema). It is minimally adequate: an agent knows what the tool produces but not how to prepare inputs.

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 57% across 14 required parameters, so the description would need to compensate for undocumented fields such as monthlySalary, terminationType, timecardDivisor, and the overtime sub-fields. It mentions none of them, and the one sentence it does contain ('pedidos líquidos') does not map to any 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 states a specific verb and resource: it calculates severance payments (verbas rescisórias) and overtime for an employment contract, and it says the result carries the legal basis and formula per line item plus a total. That is clearly distinct from siblings like early_termination_calculate or claim_value_calculate, though the description never names 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?

The only usage instruction is 'Use os valores devolvidos nos pedidos líquidos', which is an ambiguous directive about downstream use rather than when to call this tool instead of one of the 20+ sibling calculators. There is no statement of prerequisites, data the user must supply, or conditions under which another tool fits better.

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