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

The annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by revealing the coefficient rule (60% + 2% per year above 20 years for men / 15 for women) and the floor/cap application. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the formula, the sex-specific thresholds, and the floor/cap behavior into a compact definition, which is appropriate for a specialist calculation tool.

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?

Given the moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the calculation logic, required inputs, and the floor/cap constraints well. It leaves minor ambiguity around whether optional teto_inss and salario_minimo use defaults when omitted, but this does not prevent an agent from invoking the tool with the required parameters.

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 must compensate. It effectively maps media_salarios, tempo_contribuicao_anos, sexo, salario_minimo, and teto_inss to the formula, including the sex-specific threshold. It does not name the parameters explicitly or explain defaults, but the formula provides substantial semantic value.

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 (RMI — Renda Mensal Inicial) and states the exact calculation formula: average contribution salary times a coefficient, with floor and ceiling. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'calculates' or differentiate from sibling tools by name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is for calculating post-reform RMI, especially by specifying 'pós-reforma EC 103/2019'. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as calculo_pensao or calculo_rmc_rcc, and no exclusions are stated.

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