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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics beyond the schema: compounding at 8.2% p.a., a 21-year maturity schedule, Section 80C EEE tax exemption, and adherence to Government of India statutory guidelines. This gives the agent useful context about how the calculation behaves without contradicting annotations.

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 concise, well-structured sentences. The first front-loads the verb and scheme; the second packs the key calculation parameters. No filler or redundant phrases beyond minor contextual color.

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 the read-only, idempotent annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it names the scheme, the rate, the maturity, and the tax benefit. It slightly lacks an explicit statement of output format (e.g., whether it returns a maturity schedule or a single value), but the phrase '21-year maturity schedule' implies the output shape. An agent can call it correctly without major gaps.

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%, so all three parameters (girl_age, as_of_date, yearly_deposit) already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds context about the computation (rate, maturity, tax exemption) but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Simulate'/'Computes') with a specific resource ('Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana') and includes distinguishing details (girl child education, Section 80C EEE exemption, 21-year maturity) that separate it from sibling calculators like compound_wealth, ppf, or fd. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied: this is the tool for SSY simulation. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools (e.g., ppf, compound_wealth) that might also be relevant to small savings or compounding queries.

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