juros_compostos

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important assumption: contributions occur at the end of each period. However, it says nothing about return format, rounding, or other calculation conventions, though as a pure math tool this is less critical.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core calculation and adds the key timing assumption without unnecessary detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too sparse to fully support a correct call. An agent would have to infer important details like the units for the interest rate and what the returned amount represents.

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 compensate, but it only clarifies the concept of periodic contributions and their end-of-period timing. It does not define principal, explain that taxa_periodo_pct is a percentage, or specify the meaning of periodos as the number of periods.

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 states that the tool computes the future amount with compound interest and periodic contributions, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like converter_taxa and simular_tesouro. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates', but the intent is still unambiguous in Portuguese.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rentabilidade_real or rentabilidade_vs_cdi. It implies a compound-interest calculator use case, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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