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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come 'por código, com fundamento e premissas', hinting the output carries a legal basis and assumptions — useful beyond the annotations, but it never says what the response actually looks like or how incomplete contribution data is handled.

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 compact sentences with the scope and legal basis front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly vague ('feita por código, com fundamento e premissas') but earns its place by signalling output content.

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?

Five required parameters, 20% schema description coverage and no output schema: the description should explain the contribution-history input and the returned rule dates, but it only gestures at them. An agent could not confidently build a correct call from this text alone.

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%: only keepsContributing is documented, while sex, birthDate, contributions and referenceDate carry no descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — it does not explain the contribution intervals format, the role of referenceDate, or why sex matters (distinct male/female rule sets).

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 resource and regime (regras de transição da aposentadoria no RGPS, EC 103/2019) and what it produces (a data em que cada uma é cumprida). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like initial_benefit_calculate, though the boundary with dosimetry_calculate or prazo_calculate is not spelled out.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators, no prerequisites (e.g., that a complete contribution history must be supplied), and no exclusions. The agent must infer applicability 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.