calcular_das

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 explains the return values (faixa, bandeiras for sublimite and regime exit), the meaning of the calculated rate, and a key caveat about consulting carga_fora_do_das. It also sets expectations by stating it calculates legal tables and is not tax advisory, though it does not describe edge-case handling or validation behavior.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return values, parameter-mode guidance, and caveats. Each sentence adds information, though the final disclaimer about not being tax advisory could be seen as slightly tangential. Overall, it is dense without being bloated.

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 that no annotations exist and schema coverage is 0%, the description does a good job of covering the main inputs, outputs, and one sibling relationship. However, it omits the incluir_reparticao parameter, does not clarify how conflicts between rbt12 and receita_acumulada should be handled, and does not explain how this tool relates to siblings like resolver_anexo_fator_r or comparar_anexos.

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 for the schema. It does explain the distinction between rbt12 and receita_acumulada/meses_de_atividade, and it mentions anexo and the monthly revenue implicitly via 'DAS do mês'. However, the parameter incluir_reparticao is not described at all, and receita_do_mes is only implied, leaving meaningful gaps in parameter understanding.

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 o DAS do mês e a alíquota efetiva') and names the key inputs (anexo, RBT12). It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'carga_fora_do_das' by clarifying that the returned rate is only the DAS portion, so the agent can distinguish the tools.

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 call the tool and gives explicit conditional guidance for companies with less than 13 months of activity, telling the agent to use receita_acumulada and meses_de_atividade instead of rbt12. It also directs the agent to consult the sibling tool carga_fora_do_das before making claims about total tax burden, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other siblings.

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