solve_max_spending

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

The description includes a disclaimer that this is educational decision-support only and should not be used for actual financial advice. This adds important behavioral context. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, or has side effects. The transparency is adequate for a read-only computation but incomplete.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the disclaimer. Every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more concise by merging the disclaimer with the functional description, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool is simple with no parameters, but the description fails to mention what the return value looks like (e.g., a number, a structure). Since there is no output schema, the agent has no clue about the output format. The disclaimer is helpful but incomplete for a tool that returns data.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. The baseline score for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 tool's purpose: to find the maximum sustainable base annual spending for the session plan. The verb 'bisect' is somewhat technical but specific enough. The tool is distinguished from siblings like 'build_plan' and 'compare_scenarios' by focusing on a single computation. However, 'bisect' might be ambiguous to some agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The disclaimer about educational use is not usage guidance. The description does not specify contexts or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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