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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Informativo' hints the output is non-binding, but nothing is said about what is returned (values breakdown, rounding, currency handling), whether there is any side effect, or how night hours must be entered to avoid double counting.

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 zero redundancy, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There is no sentence structure to front-load anything beyond the tool's topic.

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?

A 9-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain inputs' interplay (night hours vs regular night hours, divisor, workdays) and what the response contains. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema 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 100% with 9 parameters, each carrying its own Portuguese description (e.g. divisor mensal da jornada, horas de relógio noturnas). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Cálculo informativo horas-extras 2026' names the resource (overtime hours) and the action (informational calculation) with a year qualifier, so an agent can broadly tell what it does. However it never states the scope of the calculation – base salary, 50%/100% multipliers, night premium or DSR – so the exact result produced remains ambiguous.

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 indication of when to prefer this tool over the sibling payroll calculators (ferias, rescisao, inss, irrf), nor of prerequisites such as needing a salary base or the 2026 reference year. The word 'informativo' only faintly signals that the result is an estimate rather than an official payroll figure.

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