calculate_cagr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say the tool is a side-effect-free computation, how the year fraction is derived (365-day vs. actual days), what happens when start_date equals end_date, or whether non-positive values are rejected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a four-parameter tool with no other documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should do more to specify date formats and edge-case behavior for a 4-required-parameter computation.

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% — the four parameters carry only bare titles with no format hints. The description only loosely maps its phrasing ('two values', 'date range') to initial_value/final_value and start_date/end_date, and adds nothing about date string format or value constraints.

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?

Names a specific computation (CAGR) and the inputs it operates over (two values, a date range), so an agent immediately knows what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling calculate_xirr, which computes a different return rate over cash flows.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent must infer that this is for a single start/end pair rather than irregular cash flows (which is calculate_xirr's domain) purely from the name and parameters.

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