retirement_planning__future_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the calculation type but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as mutability, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the namespace, but wastes no words. It could be improved by adding a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, assumptions (e.g., monthly compounding), or that monthly_contribution is optional.

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 0%. The description adds some meaning by naming 'lump sum', 'regular monthly contributions', and 'compounded monthly', linking to principal, monthly_contribution, and compounding frequency. However, it does not explain individual parameters' roles, units, or optionality sufficiently.

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 it calculates the Future Value of a lump sum plus regular monthly contributions compounded monthly. It uses a specific verb 'FV' and resource '[retirement-planning]', and differentiates from sibling tools like nest_egg_target or safe_withdrawal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied, but there are no when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools.

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