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

Annotations already mark the call read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by noting the value is 'dinâmico' and sourced from IPEADATA. It does not address failure modes or response format, but that is a minor omission for this simple read-only tool.

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?

Two compact clauses: the first defines exactly what the tool returns, and the second justifies why an agent would use it. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup, the description is nearly complete: it gives the source, dynamic nature, year scope, and intended applications. Minor omissions are return-unit/format details and the effect of calling without 'ano'.

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 only parameter, 'ano', is mapped by the phrase 'de um ano', but the description does not cover optionality, valid year ranges, or behavior when the parameter is omitted. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for that gap.

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 tool's resource ('salário mínimo nacional vigente de um ano') and its source (IPEADATA). It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'calculates', though the tool name and noun phrase make the intent 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?

The description names concrete legal use cases ('dosimetria (dia-multa), pensão por % do SM e mínimo existencial'), so an agent can decide when this figure is relevant. It does not include when-not-to-use guidance or point to alternatives, but no close sibling tool exists.

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