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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destrutivo, so safety is covered. The description adds context that the value is dynamic and comes from IPEADATA, which is useful, but it does not clarify return format, behavior for invalid or unspecified years, or external-data dependencies beyond the source name.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the resource, the dynamic data source, and the main legal applications efficiently.

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 description names the source and the fields/results relevance, but it does not state the output shape or the behavior when no year is provided. With no output schema present, those gaps leave some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool autonomously.

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 schema has one parameter, ano, with zero description coverage. The description's phrase 'de um ano' does map to the intended parameter, but it does not explain whether the parameter is optional, what happens when omitted, or what year range is accepted. Since the parameter name is self-explanatory, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 and outcome: the current national minimum wage for a year, sourced dynamically from IPEADATA. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from the sibling calculo_* tools, although it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'calculates'.

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 gives use cases: it is the basis for dosimetria (dia-multa), penso por % do salário mínimo, and mnimo existencial. This tells an agent when the tool is relevant, though it does not contrast it with alternatives like calculo_pensao or calculo_dosimetria.

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