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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful computational context by specifying the 2026 INSS/IRRF tables, the legal basis of Lei 12.506/2011, and that indemnity components are exempt. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a dense but relevant list of covered items. The second sentence adds a distinct legal nuance without repetition or filler.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, so more operational guidance is needed for correct invocation. The description gives a solid domain overview but omits field-level details, especially for projetar_aviso, date formats, and the structure of the returned calculation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining the 9 parameters, but it only describes calculation components at a high level. It leaves unexplained important invocation details such as the meaning of projetar_aviso, the exact mapping of motivo to the 40%/20% FGTS fine, and the expected date or salary formats.

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 a Brazilian CLT severance/labor settlement calculator and enumerates the components it handles, such as salary balance, indemnified notice, proportional 13th, vacations, and FGTS fines. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling calculo_fgts, but the core resource is unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a CLT severance or labor settlement calculation is needed. It does not provide explicit exclusions, name alternatives, or explain when a user should prefer calculo_fgts for a standalone FGTS calculation.

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