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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the existential minimum has a default of R$600 and is parametrizable, and the plan horizon is up to 5 years. It does not disclose edge-case behavior such as handling of empty debt arrays or invalid inputs.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the legal basis and main outputs. It is dense and somewhat fragmented, but every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

The description lists the computed outputs, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it omits default values for prazo_meses, clarity on optionality, and the exact response shape. For a straightforward read-only calculator, it is adequate but has clear 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 must compensate. It does: '% da renda comprometida' maps to renda_liquida and dividas, 'mínimo existencial (R$600, parametrizável)' maps to minimo_existencial, and 'plano de até 5 anos' maps to prazo_meses. It does not explicitly name parameter keys or explain credor/parcela roles, but it provides meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the legal framework (Lei 14.181/2021) and lists the specific metrics computed: percentage of committed income, existential minimum, available income, and payment capacity. Although it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'calcula', it clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling calculation tools by subject and output.

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?

Usage context is implied through the 'superendividamento' topic and the described outputs, so an agent can infer it is for over-indebtedness calculations. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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