calculate_inflation_adjustment

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that the tool uses IPCA and reports purchasing-power impact, but it does not disclose the underlying formula, constant-rate assumption, or the fact that future projection is possible via the direction parameter. This leaves important behavioral ambiguity for a financial calculator.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the core action and resource, the second clarifies the two possible outputs. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of parameter names or schema details.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only addresses the past-to-present scenario and the general output type. It omits the present_to_future direction, the calculation assumptions, and the return format, leaving gaps for an agent that needs to invoke the tool correctly in all supported modes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including defaults and units. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond contextualizing the inflation index, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither conflicts with nor substantially enriches 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 verb ('Corrige'), the resource ('um valor pela inflação (IPCA)'), and the expected output ('quanto um valor do passado equivale hoje, ou quanto o poder de compra diminuiu'). This distinguishes it from the many other calculation tools in the sibling list, such as compound interest or real salary.

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 implies the tool is for inflation-adjusted value comparisons but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like calculate_real_salary or get_current_rates. No when-not-to-use cases or sibling references are provided, so an agent must infer suitability from the tool name alone.

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