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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the 2026 INSS/IRRF tables, the Lei 12.506/2011 notice rules, the 40%/20% FGTS penalty variants, and the exemption of indemnity amounts. It does not discuss edge cases or rounding, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 identity and then compactly lists all covered components with useful parentheticals such as the law citation and the 2026 tables. There is no fluff, repetition, or extraneous marketing language.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema-level property descriptions, the definition leaves significant invocation gaps: date formats, currency units, how motivo and aviso alter the calculation, and what the returned result contains. The description is sufficient for tool discovery but not fully adequate for reliable autonomous invocation without additional documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining 9 parameters. While salario, admissao, and demissao are somewhat self-evident, the description does not map optional parameters like projetar_aviso, saldo_fgts, dependentes, motivo, or aviso to specific calculation components, nor does it specify value formats. It describes outputs and legal concepts rather than parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Verbas rescisórias / liquidação trabalhista (CLT)', which clearly identifies the specific domain of labor termination pay calculation. It then enumerates the covered components — salary balance, prior notice, proportional 13th, proportional vacations + 1/3, FGTS penalties, and INSS/IRRF discounts — making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling calculators like calculo_fgts or calculo_tempo_contribuicao.

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 provides a clear context for when the tool applies (CLT termination/liquidation), which makes its intended use inferable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use calculo_fgts for standalone FGTS calculations', so some routing burden is left to the agent.

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