retirement_planning__replacement_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about what the tool computes, side effects, or assumptions. The agent cannot infer that this calculates a ratio of retirement income to pre-retirement income or any other behavior.

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 short but wastes the opportunity to be informative. It is not concise in a helpful way—it is under-specified, failing to earn its place despite being brief.

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 domain complexity (retirement planning), presence of multiple sibling tools, and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description fails to explain the two required parameters (pre_retirement_income, retirement_income). Their names hint at their meaning, but no clarification is given on how they relate or what units/formulas are used.

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 is a tautology: '[retirement-planning] replacement_ratio' merely restates the tool name without any verb or resource indicating what the tool does. It provides no specific purpose, and there is no differentiation 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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision framework for tool selection.

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