compound_interest_calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists outputs without disclosing behavioral traits such as rounding precision, handling of edge cases (e.g., zero rate, large years), or assumptions (e.g., interest compounded at end of period). For a financial calculator, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, then lists outputs efficiently. Every element is necessary and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately states the tool's purpose and outputs. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or how optional parameters (monthly_contribution) affect calculations. Fairly complete but not robust.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'total interest earned' and 'year-by-year breakdown' but does not enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for the 5 parameters. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates compound interest and specifies outputs: final amount, total interest, and yearly breakdown. Verb 'calculate' is specific to a financial computation, distinguishing it from sibling calculators like loan_calculator or inflation_calculator.

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?

Description implies usage scenario (compound interest calculations) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among sibling tools. No context about limitations or ideal use cases.

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