Correção monetária

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the data source (official Banco Central indices), the exact month-boundary convention inherited from the Calculadora do Cidadão, and the explicit exclusion of juros and multa from the result.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, which convention it follows, and what it deliberately excludes. The operative verb leads and there is no filler.

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 read-only calculation with a fully documented four-parameter schema, the definition covers purpose, convention and scope limits adequately. With no output schema present, it would help to say what comes back (corrected value, index applied, factor), which is the only remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by explaining what the date parameters actually mean in combination ('do mês inicial até o mês anterior ao final'), a convention the schema does not convey. It also restates the index choices and the ipca default, which the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (corrige) and resource (valor entre duas datas) and enumerates the supported indices, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling indice_economico, which is the nearest plausible alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: 'Correção simples, sem juros nem multa' signals the tool is wrong when interest or penalties apply, and the Calculadora do Cidadão convention scopes the date handling. There is no explicit when-to-use versus indice_economico or calcular_prazo, and no prerequisites are listed.

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