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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral context by stating the 5% limit and 'restituição corrigida dos descontos', which helps an agent understand what kind of output to expect. It still leaves the exact calculation behavior and return format unspecified, but for a read-only calc tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the central acronym, and every fragment adds domain context; there is no obvious filler. The 'Tese' sentence is a little elliptical, but it earns its place by explaining the legal rationale behind the calculation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what result an agent will receive, but it only vaguely mentions limits and corrected restitution. It also omits how required inputs relate to the calculation, how the descontos array should be structured, and how the optional enums affect results, leaving the tool incomplete for confident invocation.

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 carries the full burden of explaining inputs, but it only alludes to 'descontos' and INSS benefit without defining the required beneficio_mensal, descontos structure, competencia, indice, data_calculo, or the role of tipo. The '5%' hint and 'RMC/RCC' enum relation add some domain meaning, but largely not enough for an agent to populate the parameters correctly from prose alone.

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 domain (RMC/RCC for INSS, codes 217/268), the calculation (5% margin limit) and the output concept (corrected restitution of discounts), so an agent can tell this is a specific legal-calculation tool. It lacks an explicit action verb, but the tool name and the description together make the purpose reasonably unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though RMC/RCC is a distinct subject among the 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 gives contextual grounding – INSS benefit, codes 217/268, and a specific legal thesis about revolving credit sold as consigned – which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it never states an explicit selection rule or names alternative tools that should be used instead, so an agent has to infer applicability rather than be told it.

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