calculate_retirement

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the three calculation modes and their inputs, but does not disclose output format, currency assumptions, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., negative values).

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?

Description is well-structured with numbered modes and example queries. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently communicates complex functionality.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good clarity on modes and inputs. Lacks explicit output format (e.g., returns number in currency units) and edge case handling, but covers typical use cases.

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%, but the description adds meaning by grouping parameters per mode and providing usage examples. It helps clarify which parameters are required for each mode beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 three specific modes of retirement calculation (corpus_needed, monthly_contribution_for, safe_withdrawal) with example queries. It distinguishes from sibling financial calculators by focusing exclusively on retirement planning.

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 explicit context for when to use each mode and gives example queries. However, it lacks direct guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_sip_dca or calculate_compound_interest.

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