compound_growth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and gives examples, but does not explain edge cases (e.g., negative rates), precision, compounding assumptions, or whether results are returned as arrays or single values.

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 extremely concise: a one-line title and three bullet points for parameters. No unnecessary words. The emoji adds visual cue. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks info on edge cases, assumptions (e.g., discrete vs. continuous compounding), and how results are structured (e.g., array per period). It is minimally adequate for a simple calculator.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the parameter descriptions carry the full burden. They add meaningful context: 'Starting value (e.g. revenue, users, investment)', 'Growth rate per period as decimal (e.g. 0.1 for 10%)', 'Number of periods to project'. This is helpful but could include units or ranges.

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: 'Compound Growth Calculator — Project growth over time.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'calculate_expected_value' or 'predict'.

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 implies usage for growth projection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'predict' or 'calculate_expected_value'. No exclusions or context are given.

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