imposto_renda_renda_fixa

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful detail by specifying the regressive tax table and the prazo (term) in days as the deciding factor. However, it does not state what the output represents, whether rounding is applied, or any edge-case behavior, leaving a clear transparency gap.

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 compact sentence with no filler and no repetition of the tool name. It front-loads the core concept and then adds the calculation method and the time dimension. It is slightly telegraphic but well structured for a focused utility tool.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only contract for the agent. It covers the input concepts but omits the output format, units, and constraints on 'dias_aplicado'. For a two-parameter calculator this is inadequate: an agent cannot confidently validate inputs or interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It maps 'rendimento' to the fixed-income earnings and 'dias_aplicado' to the term in days, which is helpful but still incomplete. It does not specify whether 'rendimento' is a currency amount or a percentage, nor whether 'dias_aplicado' means calendar days, business days, or a minimum holding period.

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 identifies the exact subject (IR on fixed-income earnings), the method (regressive table), and the time input (days), making the tool's function clear despite the lack of an explicit verb. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, which cover economic indicators, treasury products, and rate conversions. A small deduction is warranted because 'IR sobre...' is a noun phrase rather than a direct statement that derives the tax.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives such as juros_compostos, converter_taxa, or simular_tesouro. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios mentioned. An agent must rely on the tool name and semantics to infer applicability.

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