calculate_severance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does list the included components, but it overgeneralizes by stating 'multa FGTS' is included without qualifying that it applies differently by termination type — resignation typically has no FGTS penalty, and agreement has a different rate. It also omits type-specific calculation differences and does not clarify whether values are gross or net.

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, front-loaded sentence captures the tool's purpose, supported termination types, and included components with no filler. Every part of the description contributes useful information.

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?

This is a legally and financially complex calculation with multiple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not state what the tool returns, how fgts_balance and days_worked_in_month are used, how the three termination types alter the calculation, or whether the result is a breakdown or a total. Too much is left to inference for an agent to call it confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only high-level conceptual connections (e.g., 'saldo de salário' relates to days worked, '13º' relates to months worked), but it does not explain parameter roles or formatting beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('calcula'), a concrete resource ('rescisão trabalhista CLT'), and enumerates the supported termination types ('demissão sem justa causa, pedido de demissão ou acordo'). It also lists the components included, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from sibling calculators that handle only one component.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: it is for full CLT severance calculations across three dismissal types. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like calculate_vacation_pay or calculate_thirteenth_salary, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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