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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns real value' but does not disclose whether the computation has side effects, requires authentication, or is a pure function. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the computation, giving usage context, and listing inputs/output. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, earning a high score for structure without being overly verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 required parameters, pure calculation, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and inputs. It does not need to detail return values due to the output schema, making it complete for this level of complexity.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description repeats the parameter names and unit ('Amount in EUR', 'Number of years', 'Annual inflation rate percent') but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'real (inflation-adjusted) purchasing power', making the tool's purpose specific. It mentions usage for retirement or savings goals in euros, but does not explicitly differentiate from very similar siblings like 'calculate_inflation_adjustment' or 'calculate_present_value'.

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 provides usage context ('Use for retirement or savings goal in today's euros') and references related calculators in 'list_bundles', but fails to specify when not to use this tool or offer clear alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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