calculate_net_salary

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool applies INSS and IRRF discounts and that the tables are updated for 2026, which is useful. It does not, however, disclose limitations (e.g., other deductions excluded) or the exact shape of the result, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded, and the '2026 tables' note is a valuable differentiator. Every word contributes to understanding or trust in the calculation.

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 straightforward 2-parameter calculator with complete schema documentation, the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the return format (e.g., a single net value or a breakdown) would have made it fully complete, but the description already implies the result is the net salary.

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%, with both parameters already documented clearly in the input schema. The description only adds context by naming the deduction types, which reinforces the role of the parameters but does not add new syntactic or formatting detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calcula') and a clear resource ('salário líquido CLT no Brasil') while naming the two deduction types (INSS and IRRF). This makes the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_severance or calculate_real_salary without needing the schema.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives. However, the tool name and CLT-specific phrasing imply the intended use case, so an agent can infer when to call it, but it would not know why to choose it over, for example, compare_clt_vs_pj or get_inss_table.

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