retirement_planning__required_monthly_contribution

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 purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency, constant rate), edge cases, or determinism.

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 sentence with a prefix, which is concise but underspecifies key details. It is efficient but lacks necessary additional information.

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 has four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, calculation method, or underlying assumptions needed for accurate use.

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. It mentions 'target' and 'principal' but does not explain units, formats (e.g., annual_rate as decimal or percentage), or constraints like positive numbers.

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 the verb 'needed' (implying calculation) and resource 'monthly contribution' to reach a target given principal. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling retirement-planning tools like future_value or nest_egg_target.

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 like future_value or nest_egg_target. Usage context is implied by the financial goal, but exclusions and prerequisites are missing.

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