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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful computational context about the 5% limit and corrected restitution, but it does not describe return structure or error behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The most identifying details (RMC/RCC, INSS, 5% limit, restitution) are front-loaded, and the legal thesis sentence adds domain context without 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 calculation tool with five parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains the domain but not how to construct the inputs, what the output represents, or how to choose tipo and indice, leaving substantial inference burden on the agent.

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 should compensate for the five parameters. It only alludes to 'descontos' and indirectly to a correction index via 'restituição corrigida'; it does not clarify beneficio_mensal, data_calculo, tipo, or indice well enough for a caller to populate them confidently.

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 identifies a specific domain and resource: RMC/RCC reserva de margem consignável de cartão (INSS, códigos 217/268), and names what the calculation covers: limites de 5% e restituição corrigida dos descontos. This distinguishes it from most calculo_* siblings, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates', so it is clear yet not fully explicit.

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: the tool is for INSS RMC/RCC margin calculations where a revolving card was sold as consignado and never amortizes. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with closely related siblings such as calculo_restituicao_inss, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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