simular_transicao_reforma_tributaria

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a projection with assumptions and mandatory disclaimers, implying it is read-only and non-destructive. It also outlines the time frame and comparison nature, giving sufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first covers purpose and scope, the second covers inputs and output. No wasted words.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the scope (years 2026-2033, comparison, sectors, regimes), optional inputs for precision, and the nature of the output (projection with disclaimers). It is complete without needing to explain return values, as an output schema exists.

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 adds marginal value by recommending when to provide optional parameters (e.g., 'Informe aliquota_icms_atual ou aliquota_iss_atual para maior precisao'), but this is also echoed in the schema descriptions. It does not introduce new semantic insights 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 simulates the impact of the Tax Reform (LC 214/2025) year by year from 2026 to 2033, comparing old and new regimes. It specifies sectors (comércio, serviços, indústria) and regimes (Simples Nacional, Lucro Presumido, Lucro Real), making its purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'compare_tax_regimes' or 'calcular_tributos_importacao'.

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 on when to use the tool: to simulate the transition impact of the tax reform over multiple years. It suggests providing specific input parameters for precision (aliquota_icms_atual or aliquota_iss_atual). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools.

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