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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: simulating, extracting a cash-flow line, and computing three valuation metrics. It also explains the role of initial_investment. But it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior; for a non-mutating calculation tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the composite nature, then explains the process and key parameters with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, fitting within two sentences.

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 complex composite tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview and names the exact outputs (NPV, IRR, undiscounted total). However, it omits details about how the template and inputs interact, the shape of the returned object, and edge cases. It is sufficient for a first understanding but not fully complete.

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 effectively explains cashflow_metric (with examples), rate, and initial_investment, and implies template's purpose. However, other parameters (inputs, metrics, currency, period_label, horizon) remain unexplained, and their relationships are vague. The description adds meaningful value for the required parameters but not for the rest.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it projects a scenario, extracts a cash-flow line, and computes NPV, IRR, and undiscounted total. The term 'COMPOSITE (simulate -> compute)' distinguishes it from sibling tools that only simulate or only calculate, giving a specific verb+resource and clear scope.

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 implies usage context: use when you need to combine scenario simulation with financial valuation. It notes the need for a template, cashflow_metric, and rate, and that initial_investment is needed for IRR. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like calc_npv or sim_run, so usage guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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