get_salario_minimo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned content (current value + last increment). However, it says nothing about freshness/update cadence, units or currency, or whether the increment includes an effective date, which are the traits an agent would want for a data tool.

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 bilingual clauses, front-loaded with the resource and then the extra payload. Nothing is wasted and the format is scannable.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema fetch, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what comes back. The only gap is that return semantics (units, currency, effective date of the increment) are not stated and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (minimum wage) and the exact payload (current value plus the most recent increment), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from the FX/inflation/UDI siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling or scope constraint, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating beyond the topic itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, but the topic is unique among the siblings (none of the other tools cover wages), so usage is implied by the description alone. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, which is acceptable for a zero-parameter read.

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