emergency_fund

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (formula + pre-filled calculator link) and sets an 'Education only' scope, but never confirms it is a pure read/compute operation with no side effects and no auth needs, which matters at zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the computation and followed by the return shape and disclaimer. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does (formula plus calculator link). With 7 fully documented params and a stated educational scope, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the side-effect/auth profile is unstated.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description adds the formula relationship (goal = monthly expenses x months covered) plus the optional APY/deposit/target-date inputs. It does not add syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource: it computes an emergency-fund goal, the time to reach it, and the required monthly amount. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like credit_card_payoff or loan_cost_by_term. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'Education only' disclaimer signals the intended context and the description implies the tool is for emergency-fund planning. However, it never states when to prefer this over a sibling calculator or any prerequisites, leaving usage largely inferred.

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