College cost calculator
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| startDate | No | Optional date the first year starts, as YYYY-MM-DD. Adds the start date of each year to byYear, plus startDate and endDate for the whole program. It only labels the years; the costs do not change. | |
| annualCost | Yes | ||
| inflationPct | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / startDateAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional date the first year starts, as YYYY-MM-DD. Adds the start date of each year to byYear, plus startDate and endDate for the whole program. It only labels the years; the costs do not change.",
+ "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it never states that the tool projects costs forward with inflation, which is the core behavioral trait an agent needs to know before calling it.
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?
A four-word fragment is technically waste-free but is under-specified rather than concise; it does not front-load the inputs, the projection model, or the per-year breakdown that define the 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?
With four parameters, two required, no output schema, and an implicit per-year projection (referenced only in the startDate schema text via 'byYear'), the description should explain what is computed and returned. It is far too thin for a calculator whose behavior depends on an inflation projection model.
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 only 25% — only startDate is documented in the schema. The description explains none of the remaining parameters, leaving years, annualCost, and especially inflationPct (annual rate? applied per year? compounded?) semantically ambiguous despite the low coverage requiring the description to compensate.
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 'College cost calculator' essentially restates the tool name and title without adding a specific verb-and-outcome statement. It gives no clue how this differs from the many sibling calculators (e.g., converters_529, converters_student_loan, planning_cost_of_living) that also deal with education or cost projections.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent facing a 'project college expenses' request cannot tell from this text whether this tool or converters_529 is the intended path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.