simular_transicao_reforma_tributaria

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool compares regimes, shows a blend during transition, and returns yearly projections with premises and disclaimers. It is transparent about its simulation nature but could be more explicit about assumptions and error handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It efficiently covers what, when, and how to use the tool.

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 (6 parameters, 3 required, tax reform simulation), the description covers the time frame, comparison details, sectors, regimes, and optional inputs. It mentions returning yearly projections with disclaimers; since an output schema exists, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the return format.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the role of optional parameters (aliquota_icms_atual, aliquota_iss_atual) and providing default values (12%, 5%) and examples for PIS/COFINS. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool simulates the impact of Brazil's tax reform (LC 214/2025) year by year from 2026 to 2033, comparing old and new regimes. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like consultar_aliquota_icms or compare_tax_regimes by specifying its unique scope and output.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., for simulating tax reform impact over the transition period, for specific sectors and regimes). It gives guidance on optional parameters for precision but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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