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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the calculation includes INSS and IRRF discounts using 2026 tables and that indemnification-type amounts are exempt. This adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool computes. It does not describe output shape or exact method details, but the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover the safety profile, and the description does not contradict them.

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 two dense sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the main subject and then adds a clarifying statement about tax-exempt indemnification amounts. Every phrase contributes useful domain information.

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?

This is a complex labor-law calculation with 9 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions. The description gives a solid high-level overview but omits critical invocation details such as date formats, how aviso and motivo enums affect the result, the meaning of projetar_aviso, and what the tool returns. An agent would need external domain knowledge to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 by explaining parameters such as salario, admissao, demissao, aviso, motivo, saldo_fgts, dependentes, projetar_aviso, and ferias_vencidas. It does not map any parameter to its meaning or expected format. The domain context helps infer some roles (e.g., saldo_fgts relates to the FGTS fine), but this falls short of adequate parameter guidance for a 9-parameter tool.

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 as Brazilian CLT termination pay/labor settlement calculation and enumerates the main components (salary balance, notice, 13th salary, vacation, FGTS penalty). It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates', but the noun phrase plus tool name makes the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as calculo_fgts, but the scope is still clear.

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 phrase 'Verbas rescisórias / liquidação trabalhista (CLT)' implies the tool should be used for CLT termination calculations, so usage is inferable. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives like calculo_fgts for FGTS-only scenarios. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only domain context.

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