investment_analysis__npv

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It only mentions a convention for the first cashflow but does not disclose whether the tool performs standard NPV discounting, the significance of the 'rate' parameter, or the nature of the output (e.g., a single numeric value). Critical behavior is omitted.

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 extremely concise (one clause) but sacrifices necessary substance. Conciseness without clarity is a negative. It lacks a proper structure with title, purpose statement, or usage conditions.

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 complexity (multiple cash flows, discount rate) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify return format, assumptions (e.g., periodic compounding), or edge cases, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining both parameters. It only adds minimal meaning for cashflows[0] (negative at t=0) and provides no semantic detail for 'rate' or the rest of the cashflows array. The schema itself is uninformative for an agent.

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 'cashflows[0] at t=0 (usually negative)' and prefixes '[investment-analysis]'. While the tool name suggests NPV, the description fails to explicitly state that it calculates net present value. This vagueness is problematic given the sibling tool 'company_valuation__npv', which could create confusion about purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as investment_analysis__irr, payback_period, or profitability_index. The description offers no context for tool selection, leaving the agent without decision support.

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