tax_efficient_investing__tax_free_future_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (no tax drag), but does not mention other assumptions like compounding frequency or whether the rate is nominal/effective. The description adds some value beyond the schema but lacks full 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the category prefix and directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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's low complexity (simple future value formula) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it could include the output format or assumptions about compounding to be fully adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any parameters; it only states the overall purpose. Parameter names are self-explanatory ('principal', 'gross_annual_rate', 'years'), but the description adds no additional meaning or constraints.

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 tool computes the future value of a lump sum in a tax-advantaged account (Roth/ISA) with no annual tax drag, using a specific verb ('FV') and resource ('lump sum'). It distinguishes from siblings like after_tax_future_value by specifying the tax treatment.

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 use for tax-advantaged accounts (Roth/ISA) and notes 'no annual tax drag', which indirectly tells when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the context from sibling tools and naming convention makes the guidance clear.

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