plan_retirement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a multi-parameter financial projection. It does not disclose assumptions (inflation, pre/post-retirement returns), whether outputs are nominal or real, or any caveats about required inputs; only the output concept is stated. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the calculation behavior remains opaque.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. It does not earn its place as a complete tool definition for an 8-parameter calculator.

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 values need not be described. However, for a complex retirement projection with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation or convey assumptions.

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% across 8 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Required inputs such as current_monthly_expense and life_expectancy are not explained in units, currency, or interpretation, so the description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names the two concrete outputs (retirement corpus and required monthly SIP), which lets an agent distinguish this from sibling SIP projection or return calculators. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' and does not name alternatives, but the resource and computation are specific.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool such as project_sip or calculate_sip_returns. The purpose implies retirement planning, but the agent must infer all usage conditions.

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