compare_tax_regimes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns estimates (effective rate, annual tax, best option) and notes that optional payroll impacts Fator R. However, it does not mention any side effects, auth needs, or data persistence, which is acceptable for a comparison 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?

The description is three concise sentences in Portuguese, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's inputs, purpose, and a key behavioral detail (Fator R). It provides enough context for an agent to understand when to use this tool versus sibling tools that handle SPED or CNPJ queries.

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 compensates by explaining that 'faturamento' (revenue) and 'setor' (sector) are used, and 'folha opcional' (optional payroll) impacts Fator R. It even lists example sectors (comércio, serviços, indústria), adding significant meaning beyond the bare 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 compares Brazilian tax regimes (MEI, Simples Nacional, Lucro Presumido, Lucro Real) for a given revenue scenario and sector, returning effective rate, annual tax, and best option. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like consultar_cnpj or analisar_sped.

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 description mentions it is useful for 'quick tax planning' (planejamento tributário rápido), providing context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. It does not name alternative tools for more detailed analysis.

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