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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the useful context that the value is dynamic and comes from IPEADATA, but it does not disclose behavior for years without data, update cadence, or response shape. With annotations covering safety, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core resource and source, then gives the legal context. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup, the description gives the essential purpose, source, and use cases. However, there is no output schema and the optional ano parameter is not explained in terms of default behavior, so an agent cannot be fully certain how to invoke it without additional inference.

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 schema has one parameter, ano, as a number with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'de um ano' in the description maps that parameter to a year, and the parameter name and type make the intent fairly clear. However, the description does not explain whether the year is required, what happens if omitted, or what range of years is accepted.

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 as providing the current national minimum wage for a year, sourced from IPEADATA, and ties it to specific legal uses (dia-multa, pensão, mínimo existencial). It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, so it stops 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 gives concrete application contexts: dosimetria, pensão por percentual do salário mínimo, and mínimo existencial. This tells an agent when the tool is relevant, but it does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling tool.

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