Calculate Brazilian CLT vacation pay including the constitutional one-third and optional sold days, with INSS deduction.
Calcula férias CLT — valor das férias + 1/3 constitucional + abono pecuniário, com desconto de INSS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Dias de férias (máx 30) | |
| salary | Yes | Salário bruto mensal em R$ | |
| sell_days | No | Dias vendidos (máx 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a simple 'calculates vacation pay' by revealing the formula components and the INSS discount applied. It doesn't specify output format or rounding, but for a pure calculation tool the key behavioral facts are present.
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 purpose and packs in the key calculation details with zero filler. Every term earns its place: the legal scope, the three components, and the INSS discount.
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 no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the calculation scope well. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return structure (e.g., whether the output is a breakdown or a single net amount), but the formula disclosure is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does and which parameters matter.
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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context by linking 'abono pecuniário' to the sell_days parameter and '1/3 constitucional' to the calculation logic, but it doesn't provide syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calcula férias CLT', immediately identifying the domain (Brazilian CLT vacation pay). It enumerates the exact components: vacation value, constitutional 1/3, abono pecuniário, and INSS discount, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_thirteenth_salary or calculate_severance.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a CLT vacation payment calculation is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the strong domain-specific phrasing makes the intended use unambiguous among the 25 siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.