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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only signals that the result is informational. It does not say the calculation is a simulation not valid for official filing, whether the current-year rate is assumed, or anything about deterministic vs projected outputs.

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?

A single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the year "2026" is the only distinctive information conveyed.

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?

With five parameters, a required salary, a fine-base vs current-balance distinction, and no annotations or output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the two balance inputs are used. It provides none of that.

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 100% and each of the five parameters (rate 8/2, months, salary, balance, current) is already documented with units and ranges in the schema. The description adds no interpretation, such as how 'balance' versus 'current' interact, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

"Cálculo informativo fgts 2026" names a verb (cálculo) and a resource (FGTS) and adds a year, but it never says what is actually computed — deposit projection, rescission fine, or both. This matters because the schema exposes both salary/monthly-deposit parameters and balance/current (fine-base) parameters, and the sibling 'rescisao' also touches FGTS.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rescisao' (which computes the 40% FGTS fine on termination) or 'ferias'. The word "informativo" hints at a simulation, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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