calculate_overtime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the core calculation behavior: overtime is valued at 50% for weekdays and 100% for Sundays/holidays. However, it does not mention the underlying formula (e.g., salary divided by monthly_hours), possible rounding behavior, or what happens when both extra-hours inputs are zero.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key rate distinction. Every phrase carries meaningful information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple calculator tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential computation context. There is no output schema, so return-value format is not documented anywhere, and the description does not clarify whether the result is a single total or an itemized breakdown. Overall it is adequate but leaves minor gaps around output and edge-case behavior.

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 provides full documentation for all four parameters, including defaults and descriptions, so the description does not need to restate them. The description's mention of 50% and 100% maps naturally to extra_hours_50 and extra_hours_100. There is no additional semantic value over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Calcula valor de horas extras CLT' — calculating overtime value under Brazilian CLT rules. It also distinguishes the domain by mentioning the 50% and 100% multipliers for weekdays vs Sundays/holidays. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like calculate_severance or calculate_vacation_pay, 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?

The CLT reference clearly implies the intended use case: Brazilian labor-law overtime calculations. No alternative tools are named, and there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling would be more appropriate for related calculations. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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