investment_analysis__profitability_index

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The agent has no way to infer side effects or safety profile.

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 bracketed phrase) but at the cost of being uninformative. Conciseness is only valuable if the content is substantive; here it is under-specified to the point of uselessness.

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 complexity of the financial calculation, the absence of an output schema, and the lack of parameter documentation, the description is entirely incomplete. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without making assumptions about the inputs and expected result.

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?

The schema defines two parameters ('rate' and 'cashflows') but provides no descriptions. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. For a financial tool, 'rate' likely means discount rate and 'cashflows' likely an array of monetary flows, but this is not clarified. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails.

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 is merely a bracketed version of the tool name ('[investment-analysis] profitability_index'). It does not specify any verb or resource, nor does it explain what the tool computes. The name 'profitability_index' gives a hint, but the description adds no clarity, and it barely distinguishes from siblings like npv or irr.

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 on when to use profitability_index versus other investment analysis tools such as npv, irr, or payback_period. The description lacks any context about intended use cases or alternatives.

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