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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — a 2-credit cost and the notion that it accounts for inflation in returns — but says nothing about precision, data source, or latency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by practical examples. The opening 'Purchasing Power: Purchasing Power' repeats the name twice for no benefit, which is the only real waste.

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 three-parameter read-only computation with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly: what it computes, sample framing, and the credit cost. The only substantive gap is the lack of differentiation from the other inflation-related siblings.

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%, with each parameter documented including the 'omit for current' behavior on `to` and the 1947 data floor on `from`. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific operation: computing the inflation-adjusted value of a dollar amount between two time periods, and reinforces it with a concrete example ('what $100 from 1990 is worth today') plus the real-returns use case. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from closely related siblings such as CPIInflation or InflationRate, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied through examples — converting a historical amount to today's dollars, or deflating investment returns. There is no statement of when to pick this over InflationRate, CPIInflation, or CurrencyConverter, and no exclusions, which matters given several overlapping inflation tools in the sibling list.

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