Mf Compute Returns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a safe, read-only calculation with no side effects, but does not explicitly say so, nor does it mention edge-case behavior such as missing NAV dates or whether from_date must precede to_date. Output format is covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core computation is stated immediately.

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 simple three-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. It is marginally thin on edge cases, but nothing essential is missing.

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 each parameter's meaning and default are already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'between two dates', adding no syntax or constraint detail 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 (compute) and resource (absolute return and CAGR for a scheme) over a date range, which an agent can distinguish from data-fetching siblings like mf_get_nav or mf_get_nav_history. It does not explicitly contrast itself with mf_sip_calculator, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as mf_get_nav_history or mf_sip_calculator, and no statement of preconditions. Usage is only weakly implied by the two-date input.

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