quantificar_segregacao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job: it reveals the calculation logic (segregated tax percentages are disregarded), the three returned values, and that the difference is recoverable. It also disclaims tax-advisory scope, which helps set agent expectations.

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 dense but organized: the main purpose comes first, followed by input guidance, outputs, target user, and a safety disclaimer. It is somewhat long, but each sentence adds useful information and no filler is present.

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?

The description covers the calculation context, required revenue segmentation, outputs, intended user, and important boundary conditions. Given the tool's tax complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete, though it could further clarify how the optional revenue parameters should be filled relative to the month total.

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. It gives meaning to the segregation categories by explaining monofásica and ICMS-ST revenue, but it does not explain required parameters like 'anexo' and 'rbt12' beyond their self-explanatory names. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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+resource statement ('Quantifica o efeito da segregação de receitas no DAS') and goes on to define the exact outputs: DAS sem segregar, DAS segregado, and the difference. This clearly separates it from the generic calcular_das sibling by describing a specialized calculation.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use para quem REVENDE mercadoria já tributada na origem') and when not to ('quem produz é o responsável... não abaixo'). It does not name an alternative sibling, but the target audience and exclusions are clearly stated.

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