tvm_cagr

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return structure (CAGR, total return, equivalent annual return), confirming no side effects. No contradictions; description adds value beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the core purpose, second gives usage guidance and return values. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description lists return values (CAGR decimal, total return, equivalent annual return) but does not explain the format of forward projections when include_projections is true. For a tool with no output schema, slightly more detail on the projections output would improve completeness, but it is largely adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'beginning value, ending value, and number of years' which maps to start_value, end_value, years. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the include_projections parameter. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 title and description explicitly state the tool computes Compound Annual Growth Rate with optional forward projections, using specific verbs and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling TVM tools like tvm_future-value, tvm_irr, etc.

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 says 'Use when computing compound annual growth rate,' providing clear context. While it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the sibling tools cover other TVM calculations, implying proper usage. Lacks explicit exclusions but is still effective.

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