calculate_real_salary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool computes a comparison and indicates the financial outcome, which conveys a read-only, non-destructive calculation. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., a number, a message, a report) or any assumptions/limitations beyond the schema.

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 unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Calcula o salário real...'), and the second sentence adds value by explaining the output's meaning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with three clearly schematized parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the purpose and the decision-oriented output. It could go slightly further by noting that the result is a comparison or by clarifying how inflation is measured, but these are minor gaps.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the input properties, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as the fact that inflation_period is a percentage.

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') with a clear resource ('salário real') and states the exact analytical goal: discounting inflation and showing whether the raise followed IPCA or lost purchasing power. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling calculators like calculate_net_salary or calculate_inflation_adjustment by focusing on real salary comparison.

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 need for previous salary, current salary, and inflation data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_inflation_adjustment or calculate_net_salary. There are no exclusions or conditional routing instructions, so usage context is only implicit.

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