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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns an equivalent value, but this overlaps with the output schema and adds little behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not contradict the 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 short and front-loads the core purpose before usage and parameter notes. The final suggestion to see list_bundles is useful but somewhat tangential, and the input/return sentences largely repeat structured fields. Still, it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity, complete annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for invocation. It could be stronger if it distinguished this calculator from similar inflation-adjustment siblings. The cross-reference to list_bundles partially helps navigation but is not a substitute for that differentiation.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with descriptions in the input schema. The description merely lists the inputs again without adding format details, defaults, or semantic nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare purchasing power between two years.' It also explains the practical use case for translating historical amounts. However, it does not distinguish this tool from very similar siblings such as calculate_inflation_adjusted_value or calculate_inflation_adjustment.

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?

It gives clear application contexts: translating historical prices, salaries, or savings to today's value. This tells an agent when the tool is relevant. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools for overlapping inflation-adjustment calculations.

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