plan_my_finances

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 discloses that the tool orchestrates multiple data sources, runs asynchronously with `task: {}`, and provides live progress updates. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or whether it causes side effects beyond computation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds an important async usage detail. Every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The tool is a complex orchestrator with no output schema and no annotations. The description states it returns a coherent plan with summary and action items, and mentions async progress updates, but it does not describe the exact output shape, error handling, or how the sub-tools' results are combined.

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 71%, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already states. It calls out gross income, mutual fund holding, and IFSC, but does not clarify the purpose or interactions of ageGroup, deductions, isSalaried, or deadlineWindowDays beyond what the property descriptions provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('orchestrates') and names the resource ('tax calculator, live mutual-fund NAV/XIRR, IFSC verification, compliance calendar') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by offering a one-shot composite plan with a summary and action items.

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 phrase 'One-shot personal finance & tax plan' and the explicit mention of orbital sub-tools imply this is for comprehensive planning rather than using individual tools. It clearly states that income is required and fund/IFSC are optional, and notes the async task augmentation. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of sibling tools' or list when not to use it.

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