calculate_mei_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool calculates a value and performs a check, but does not explain whether it uses current tax rates, how the revenue limit is annualized, or what the response contains. This leaves important assumptions and behaviors undisclosed for a financial calculation 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the secondary check. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return format and edge cases, but it does not. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., an amount, a boolean for limit compliance), which revenue limit is used, or how activity affects the calculation. For a two-parameter tool this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking monthly_revenue to the revenue-limit check, but it does not clarify how activity influences the DAS value beyond the enum's 'Tipo de atividade' label. No compensation is required given full schema coverage.

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 specifies a clear verb ('calcula') and resource ('DAS MEI mensal'), plus a secondary behavior (verifying revenue limit). It is easily distinguished from sibling calculators like calculate_net_salary or calculate_vacation_pay because MEI is a unique Brazilian tax regime. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 use case: calculating the monthly MEI tax and checking revenue compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but the guidance is left implicit.

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