math_compound_interest_calculator

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

No annotations provided, so the description must reveal behavior. It mentions compounding frequencies and optional contributions, which are key behaviors. However, it omits any limitations, error handling, or side effects, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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 relatively short, but it includes a redundant 'Menu ID' and a reference to describe_tool, which adds noise. Core purpose is front-loaded, but the extra details could be condensed.

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?

With 7 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the 'operation' field or the return format. Referring to describe_tool for full guidance shifts the burden away from this description.

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?

The schema has 7 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints at 'compoundingsPerYear' and 'monthlyContribution' but does not explain 'operation', 'principal', 'annualRatePercent', 'years', or 'contributionTiming'. It adds almost no meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Calculate compound interest' with specific compounding options and optional contributions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like loan_calculator or scientific_calculator, and the mention of a 'Menu ID' is extraneous.

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 vs alternatives. The only advice is to use describe_tool, which is not a usage guideline. No exclusions or context for selection.

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