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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that INSS and IRRF calculations use 2026 tables, that FGTS penalties can be 40%/20%, and that indemnity payments are exempt, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 dense, well-organized sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists the covered items in a compact semicolon-separated sequence. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 complex labor-law calculation with nine parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the high-level scope is insufficient for reliable invocation. Required inputs like salario, admissao, and demissao have no format guidance, and optional flags such as projetar_aviso are unexplained. The annotation safety profile is covered, but invocation semantics remain incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain the nine parameters. It mentions components like aviso prévio and férias vencidas, which hint at aviso and ferias_vencidas, but it does not clarify the format or meaning of salario, admissao, demissao, motivo, projetar_aviso, dependentes, or saldo_fgts. This leaves agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 a specific calculation domain: Brazilian CLT termination severance (verbas rescisórias), and enumerates the exact components it covers, such as salary balance, indemnified prior notice, proportional 13th, vacations, FGTS penalty, and INSS/IRRF deductions. This level of specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculo_fgts, calculo_aluguel, and calculo_pensao.

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 usage for labor termination settlements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculo_fgts or calculo_revisional. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer selection from the domain label rather than receiving explicit routing instructions.

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