finance.cagr

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that the output is a multiple (0.1 = 10%), the default precision and rounding mode, and the input domain limits. It does not say how it behaves on violated preconditions (negative growth, zero beginning value), which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the formula, then constraints, then output scale and defaults. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

For a five-parameter numeric calculator with an output schema, the definition covers formula, input domains, output units and defaults — enough to call it correctly. Missing only the enum of valid `rounding` modes and error behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does for all five parameters: beginning_value (>0 Decimal string), ending_value (>=0 Decimal string), periods (>=1 integer), decimals (default 6), rounding (default HALF_EVEN). The one gap is that the accepted `rounding` values are never enumerated, so an agent knows the default but not the legal alternatives.

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?

States a specific verb (계산한다) plus the exact resource (CAGR) and even gives the formula, which makes it unmistakable against siblings like finance.roi or finance.irr. An agent can identify exactly what this computes without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the formula — there is no explicit 'use this instead of roi/irr when...' routing, nor guidance on when CAGR is inappropriate. The input domain constraints (beginning_value > 0, periods >= 1) hint at valid contexts but are not framed as usage advice.

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