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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the value is dynamic and comes from IPEADATA, implying it is not a static table. It does not explain what happens when 'ano' is omitted, whether historical years are covered, or what the return payload looks like, so the extra disclosure is moderate.

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 short, front-loaded with the core meaning, and every part contributes value. The dynamic data source and the legal use cases are packed into two sentences with no filler. A bit more structure or explicit parameter framing could improve it, but it is appropriately concise.

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 a tool with a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description leaves important gaps: what 'ano' means, whether omitting it returns the current year, and what the returned value contains. The read-only annotations reduce safety concerns, but an agent still lacks enough information to invoke the tool with full confidence.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, 'ano', with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'de um ano', which weakly hints that the parameter represents a year, but it never explicitly explains the 'ano' parameter, its allowed range, optionality, or default behavior. Since the schema gives no semantic help, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the current national minimum wage for a year, sourced dynamically from IPEADATA. It also signals the tool's legal purpose (day-fine, percentage-based pension, existential minimum), which helps distinguish it from general calculation siblings. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement and does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool by name.

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 concrete usage context by stating the tool is the basis for dosimetria (dia-multa), pensão por % do SM, and mínimo existencial. This tells an agent when this value is needed. It does not mention when not to use it or point to an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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