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

The tool claims to be 'informational,' which is helpful, but since there are no annotations and zero contextual detail, the agent has no information regarding the calculation methodology. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like how 'dependents' or 'advance' specifically impact 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?

The description is extremely concise, serving primarily as a title/label for the tool. Every word is focused on the topic of 13o calculation. While brevity is good, its extreme lack of information prevents a higher score in this category.

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?

Given that there are four complex input parameters and the description adds zero semantic value or operational context, the definition is critically incomplete. An agent cannot reliably know how to format or interpret the necessary inputs for this payroll function.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was expected to define its 4 input parameters, yet it does so nowhere. The agent must rely entirely on guessing what 'salary', 'months', 'advance', and 'dependents' mean within the context of 13o without any definition from the description.

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 clearly identifies the resource and action as an 'Informational 13th salary calculation.' The inclusion of the year '2026' provides a useful scope marker. However, because there are many sibling tools (e.g., 'fgts', 'irrf'), it does not explicitly state why this specific calculation is necessary over others.

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 description offers no usage guidance whatsoever. It does not explain whether this tool should be used at the start of a fiscal year, if it requires specific payroll data, or how it relates to other calculation tools available.

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