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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the data is dynamic and comes from IPEADATA, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose behavior such as return format, error handling, or data availability windows.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core definition and followed by application context. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what it returns and why it matters, but it omits the return format and what happens when 'ano' is omitted (schema marks it optional). No output schema exists, so these details would need to be in the description to be fully complete.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. 'um ano' implies the 'ano' parameter refers to the target year, but it does not specify valid year ranges, whether the parameter is required (schema says optional), or formatting expectations. The meaning is inferable but not fully 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 identifies the resource as the national minimum wage in effect for a given year, sourced dynamically from IPEADATA. This is more specific than the tool name alone and clarifies the domain (legal sentencing, alimony, and existential minimum calculations), though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 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 gives concrete use contexts: 'Base para dosimetria (dia-multa), pensao por % do SM e minimo existencial', indicating when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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