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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it does very little: it does not state the calculation basis (progressive brackets vs flat rate), rounding, which 2026 table/version is used, or that results are estimates rather than official figures. 'Informativo' is the only behavioral signal.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the single phrase omits what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is the only channel for explaining inputs and return values — yet it explains neither. An agent cannot tell what the returned figure represents or how it is derived.

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% for the single required 'salary' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether salary is gross monthly salary in BRL, whether it should include other discounts, or how the default of 3000 and the 0–100,000,000 bounds relate to the calculation.

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 calculation (INSS 2026), which distinguishes it from siblings like irrf, fgts and rescisao. However, 'Cálculo informativo' is vague about what is actually computed — contribution amount, rate, bracket — and 'informativo' is never explained.

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 guidance on when to use this versus irrf or the other payroll calculators, and no statement about input expectations or prerequisites. Only the word 'informativo' implies a non-official estimate, which is an indirect hint at best.

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