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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It transparently describes the calculation and the factors considered, but it does not state default assumptions for omitted optional parameters, the output format, or explicitly confirm it is side-effect-free beyond the verb 'calcula'.

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?

One sentence, direct, and front-loaded with the main action. No filler, no redundancy, and no repetition of the tool name.

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 seven parameters, the description is adequate but not rich. An agent learns the purpose and scope, but not the shape of the returned value or how missing optional parameters are handled—both meaningful gaps for a calculation tool in a larger simulation flow.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions, and schema coverage is around 71%. The description adds only conceptual grouping of parameters into the calculation context, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific calculation—'valor máximo de imóvel'—and the constraints that define it (comprometimento de renda, entrada, custos de transação). This is clearly distinct from siblings such as simulate_buy_vs_rent or calculate_cet.

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 purpose statement gives clear context: use this when the agent needs the maximum property price a family income can finance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the specificity of the description implies the appropriate use case.

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