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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful operational context such as 2026 tax tables and exempt indemnity amounts, but it does not disclose output format or calculation limitations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately follows with a concrete list of calculated items. Every phrase contributes domain information; the closing tax-exemption note is relevant and non-redundant.

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 read-only calculator with safe annotations, the description provides adequate domain coverage and legal references. However, with nine parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, an agent still needs to infer input conventions and result shape, so completeness is only moderately sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming concepts tied to parameters: aviso prévio, férias vencidas, FGTS multa, and INSS/IRRF discounts. It does not explicitly explain formats or less obvious parameters like projetar_aviso, admissao, demissao, and dependentes, leaving some inference required.

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 domain: Brazilian CLT severance calculation ('Verbas rescisórias / liquidação trabalhista (CLT)') and lists the exact component items. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like calculo_fgts, so it misses the top-tier sibling differentiation, but the component list makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain label 'rescisão trabalhista' and the list of severance components; an agent can infer this tool is for CLT termination payouts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling alternatives such as calculo_fgts or calculo_pensao.

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