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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the modeling assumption ('constant inflation rate') beyond the annotations, but offers no info on precision, rounding, or edge cases. This clear addition over structured data merits a solid 3.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then inputs/returns. Every sentence is short and mostly earns its place; the input restatement is slightly redundant given the schema, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain returns, yet it does state them (mild redundancy). It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it omits any guidance on how it differs from calculate_inflation_adjusted_value.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'amount, inflation rate %, years' without adding format, sign, or range meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Adjust a nominal amount to a target year using a constant inflation rate.' An agent knows exactly what computation happens. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling calculate_inflation_adjusted_value, so the sibling-differentiation requirement for a 5 is not met.

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?

'Use for real-value comparisons across time' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of the obvious alternative calculate_inflation_adjusted_value which does essentially the same thing. The pointer to list_bundles is a cross-reference to a bundle tool, not usage guidance for picking between sibling calculators.

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