Financial Independence (FIRE) Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description sets expectations by mentioning it computes estimates based on inputs and assumed return/withdrawal rates. It discloses after-tax income and inflation-adjusted return, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It efficiently conveys required inputs and outputs, though it could be slightly more telegraphic.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what it does and key outputs. It misses some delimitations (constant spending, no inflation variable), but is complete enough for a calculator.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but listing outputs (FIRE number, savings rate, years) aids understanding of parameter roles. No significant added value.

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 specifies the tool computes FIRE number, savings rate, and years to FI using income, expenses, investments, and return. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like compound_growth and budget_analyzer.

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 implicitly indicates use for retirement planning, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. Given sibling names, the context is somewhat clear but could be more directive.

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