Investment / Opportunity Comparison (ROI, NPV, IRR)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that each opportunity is a cash flow series and that period 0 is typically negative. However, it does not disclose edge cases, error handling, or the exact output format (only says 'tells you which option creates the most value').

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with essential context about cash flows.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., a sorted list or comparison table), which would help an agent understand how to use the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds context about ROI, NPV, etc., but that relates more to purpose than parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description clearly state the tool compares multiple investments on ROI, NPV, IRR, and payback period. The verb 'compare' and resource 'investments' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings that focus on single analyses (e.g., compound_growth).

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 the tool is for comparing multiple cash flow streams to find the best value, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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