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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'informativo' faintly implies an estimate rather than an official payroll figure, which is useful, but there is no disclosure of determinism, rounding, what the result contains, or whether inputs like dependents affect the outcome — gaps that matter for a calculation tool.

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 single five-word phrase is not padded, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no front-loaded statement of inputs, outputs or scope to justify the brevity. Brevity here costs the agent necessary information.

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 3-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essentially nothing an agent needs: not what the result represents, not what each parameter means, not how it differs from the other seven payroll calculators. Grossly incomplete.

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 0%: 'days', 'salary' and 'dependents' have only types, defaults and ranges. The description supplies no meaning at all — it does not say that 'days' is vacation days (capped at 30), that 'salary' is gross monthly pay, or that 'dependents' feeds a deduction. It completely fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific domain (vacation/ferias pay) and a year, and the verb 'Cálculo' signals a computation tool. However, it never says what is actually computed — gross vacation pay, the constitutional 1/3 bonus, net after INSS/IRRF — so it is only distinguishable from siblings like 'rescisao' or '13o' by the tool name itself. Adequate but vague on scope.

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 indication of when to use this instead of the sibling calculators (inss, irrf, fgts, rescisao), nor any prerequisites such as whether salary is gross or net. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name in the context of a payroll-calculator family.

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