project_sip

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly defines a core behavioral trait—that the calculation relies on an 'assumed constant return' rather than real market data, which is vital context for a financial projection tool.

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 definition is extremely lean. It front-loads the core function in the first sentence and uses the second sentence to provide critical, high-value differentiation, making every word contribute maximally.

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 complexity of financial modeling, the description provides the necessary conceptual context regarding its 'what-if' nature and how it relates to other available tools. It does not overpromise or omit key contextual limitations.

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?

The description provides semantic value by framing the inputs as an 'assumed constant return' and an 'optional yearly step-up,' giving context to the parameters rather than just listing them. However, it does not clarify unit conventions (e.g., if the return is annual or monthly percentage).

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 clearly states the purpose is to 'Project a SIP' and specifies the scope as using 'an assumed constant return.' Crucially, it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool, 'calculate_sip_returns,' by defining its function as a 'what-if projection'.

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 provides excellent usage guidance by defining the operational boundaries: it uses assumed returns (what-if) and explicitly directs the user to the correct alternative ('calculate_sip_returns') when they require real fund history.

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