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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the calculation behavior of summing corrected discounted installments. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose return format, failure modes, or legal/processing assumptions beyond the STF agreement.

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 deliver the core operation and legal context with no filler. The most identifying information is front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and understand.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, an agent still lacks the return-value expectations, date/index formats, and required structure of each descontos item. The legal context is useful, but the description is not complete enough for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only implicitly maps to 'descontos' and 'indice' via 'parcelas descontadas' and 'corrigidas'. It leaves `data_calculo`, the competencia format, and how `indice` is applied unexplained, making reliable parameter construction difficult.

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 states the operation ('Restituição de descontos indevidos no INSS') and the verb ('soma as parcelas descontadas corrigidas'), with specific scope via codes 280/304/310/378 and the STF/ADPF 1.236 agreement. This distinguishes it well from the generic calculo_* 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?

It provides a clear use context: undue INSS discounts, associative fraud, and administrative resarcimento under the STF agreement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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