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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Informativo' hints that this is an informational estimate rather than an official filing, but the description does not explain assumptions, rate tables, output format, or whether results are estimates only.

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 a single short phrase with no wasted text and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized in form, though the brevity contributes to the overall under-specification.

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 a tax calculator with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. It identifies the calculation and year but leaves out what the calculation returns, how dependents affect it, and what assumptions apply.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the two parameters, but it says nothing about salary or dependents. The parameter names and min/max values are intuitive in the schema, but the description adds no semantic meaning or clarification.

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 states a specific calculation resource (IRRF) and a specific year (2026), so the agent can tell this is an IRRF tax calculator. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as inss or the other payroll calculators, but the resource acronym itself carries meaningful 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inss, 13o, or rescisao. It implies a calculation context but provides no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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