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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose considered cost components and the three scenario outputs. However, it mentions 'parcela de financiamento (PRICE)' while the schema's `amortizationSystem` parameter also supports SAC, inaccurately narrowing the described behavior and omitting a configurable option.

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 three compact sentences with no redundant information. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a necessary layer: the calculation goal, the inputs considered, and the output scenarios.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid high-level contract: purpose, key inputs, and the returned scenarios. It omits default-value assumptions and the SAC option, but the schema handles parameter definitions, so the description remains sufficient for correct 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 100%, so the individual parameters are already well documented. The description only restates the cost categories considered (condomínio, IPTU, manutenção, seguros, etc.) without adding new semantic detail 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 clearly states the tool's specific verb ('Calcula') and resource ('preço máximo de imóvel compatível com um aluguel mensal máximo informado'). It also explains what the tool considers and returns, making it easily distinguishable from siblings like check_affordability or simulate_buy_vs_rent.

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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'compatível com um aluguel mensal máximo informado', but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or examples. The guidance is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the intended scenario.

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