tax_efficient_investing__after_tax_future_value

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'FV of a lump sum in a taxable account where gains are taxed annually.' It does not disclose assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency, timing of tax payments), edge cases, or limitations. The agent lacks essential behavioral context for correct invocation.

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, which is concise. However, the prefix '[tax-efficient-investing]' is redundant given the tool name already includes the module. This wastes a few characters but does not harm clarity significantly.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the formula works, what the return value is, or how to interpret the inputs. An agent would need additional context (e.g., documentation) to use this 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%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not describe any of the four parameters individually (principal, gross_annual_rate, annual_tax_rate, years). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but their units, valid ranges, or interrelationships are omitted, leaving ambiguity.

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 computes the future value of a lump sum in a taxable account with annual taxation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tax_free_future_value (tax-free) and tax_drag_cost (different concept). The verb 'FV' is understood as 'calculate future value', making it specific and actionable.

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?

The description implies usage for taxable accounts with annual tax on gains, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tax_free_future_value or tax_drag_cost. No exclusion criteria or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names alone.

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