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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the value is dynamic and comes from IPEADATA, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the output format, handling of invalid years, or behavior when the optional 'ano' parameter is omitted.

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 core result and then lists the concrete legal use cases. Every clause adds value, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup, the tool is largely usable as documented, and the description supplies both the data source and the intended applications. With no output schema, however, it should state what is returned, such as a monthly R$ value, and how missing or invalid years are handled. These gaps prevent full contextual completeness.

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 description says the minimum wage is 'de um ano' and the schema defines 'ano' as a number, allowing the agent to infer that the parameter is a calendar year. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by linking the parameter to the returned value. It still lacks a valid range, format detail, or default behavior for an omitted year.

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: the current national minimum wage for a given year, sourced from IPEADATA. It also names concrete legal applications, which helps distinguish it from the sibling calculation tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'calculates', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when this value is relevant: as the basis for day-fine dosimetry, percentage-based pensions, and the existential minimum. This gives an agent clear context for selecting the tool. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling appears to be a close substitute.

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