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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it discloses INSS/IRRF deductions using 2026 tables, the FGTS fine rates, and that indemnity items are exempt. No contradiction with 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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the core domain, followed by an organized list of items. Every phrase adds information, including the law reference and the 2026 table detail. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate as a high-level overview but not fully self-sufficient for nuanced calls. It does not explain required input formats, the meaning of 'projetar_aviso', or how 'motivo' influences the FGTS fine and tax treatment.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 9 parameters, but it only loosely maps to a few of them (aviso, férias, FGTS). It leaves 'motivo', 'saldo_fgts', 'projetar_aviso', 'dependentes', and date formats unexplained, and it only names the 'indenizado' aviso option, potentially obscuring the other enum values.

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 scope: 'Verbas rescisórias / liquidação trabalhista (CLT)' and enumerates the main calculation components (saldo de salário, aviso prévio, 13º, férias, FGTS). It is unambiguous about the tool's purpose, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast it with sibling calculators.

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 domain statement implies when to use the tool — for CLT termination/labor settlement calculations — but it does not state explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as calculo_fgts or calculo_salario_minimo. There is clear contextual scope but no exclusions or sibling routing.

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