retirement_planning__safe_withdrawal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that the tool likely calculates a safe withdrawal amount, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits such as assumptions, formulas, or constraints. The description provides no transparency.

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 short (one line) which could be concise if it were informative, but it is merely a repeat of the name. Brevity without content is underspecification, not conciseness. The structure is minimal and front-loads no useful 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 2 parameters (one required), no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools in retirement_planning category, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to define inputs, outputs, or usage context. For a meaningful financial computation tool, this is inadequate.

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%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what 'rate' or 'portfolio' represent or how they affect the computation. The name 'safe_withdrawal' hints at portfolio and withdrawal rate, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names.

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 'safe_withdrawal' which merely restates the tool name. It does not use a specific verb or indicate what the tool calculates or produces. Given sibling tools like 'future_value' and 'nest_egg_target', the description offers no differentiation.

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 this tool versus alternatives like 'retirement_planning__required_monthly_contribution' or 'retirement_planning__replacement_ratio'. The context is entirely absent.

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