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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so no safety disclosure is missing. The description adds useful behavioral context: the 5% limit, corrected restitution, and the thesis that the revolving card sold as consigned never amortizes, which clarifies the calculation's assumptions.

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 sentences front-load the domain and key calculation factors. The legal thesis sentence adds context without bloat, so the description is efficient.

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 with five parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It omits what the tool returns, how the descontos array is interpreted, and the meaning of the indice/tipo enums; annotations compensate only for safety, not for these gaps.

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 carries the burden, and it only loosely maps to parameters: '5%' relates to beneficio_mensal, 'descontos' appears in the schema, and 'corrigida' hints at indice. It does not explain tipo, indice choices, data_calculo, or the descontos item structure, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 names RMC/RCC and the INSS consignment margin domain with specific codes (217/268), making the calculation's subject unmistakable. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'calculates', but 'limites de 5% e restituição corrigida' conveys the computation. It is clearly distinct from the sibling calculo_* tools.

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 RMC/RCC margin/restitution calculations and mentions the legal thesis, but it never states when to prefer this tool over a sibling or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are given, so routing must be inferred from the domain context.

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