tvm_present-value

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'Returns: present value and discount factor' adds value by disclosing outputs. No contradictory or missing behavioral info.

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 two sentences: first defines the tool, second gives usage and returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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 financial calculation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers purpose and returns. It lacks detail on parameter units or special cases (e.g., rate format), but is largely sufficient.

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 the description adds little beyond what the schema already explains (e.g., 'provide future value, discount rate, and number of periods' is redundant with schema descriptions). Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it computes 'present value of a future lump sum and/or annuity stream', using specific financial terms that distinguish it from sibling tools like tvm_future-value, tvm_irr, and tvm_npv.

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 the present value of a future cash flow', providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling TVM tools.

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