calculate_lumpsum_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the key assumption of a constant annual return and a one-time investment, but it omits important behavioral details such as compounding frequency and whether fees or taxes are ignored.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the calculation.

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 simple calculator with 3 required parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves out compounding frequency and parameter-unit details that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 schema has only bare titles. The description implicitly maps one-time investment to principal and constant annual return to expected_return_pct, but it does not explicitly explain units, formats, or the role of the years parameter.

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 states a specific calculation: future value of a one-time investment at a constant annual return. This clearly distinguishes it from periodic-investment siblings like project_sip and calculate_sip_returns, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer it is for lump-sum future value calculations, but there is no direction on choosing between this and related tools such as calculate_fd or project_sip.

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