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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. The word 'informativo' weakly signals that the output is informational rather than an official payroll figure, but there is no mention of return format, accuracy caveats, or how the termination-type enum affects behavior.

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 short phrase is not verbose but is under-specified rather than concise—there is no structure, no front-loaded explanation of inputs or outputs, and nothing that earns its place beyond a label.

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 an 8-parameter calculator with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which of the 8 inputs are required, what the enum choices mean, or what the calculation returns.

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% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Critical semantics such as the 'type' enum values (sem, acordo, pedido, justa), 'notice', 'periods', and the 13th-salary/vacation month counts are left completely unexplained.

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 names a specific resource (rescisao, i.e., severance calculation) and ties it to year 2026, which distinguishes it from siblings like ferias, fgts, and 13o. However, the verb is only implied by 'Cálculo' and the qualifier 'informativo' is left unexplained, so the exact purpose is vague beyond 'something about severance'.

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 use this tool versus the sibling calculators (fgts, ferias, inss, irrf), nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name what scenario triggers it.

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