Adjust an amount for inflation between two years

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the exact return values (adjusted amount, index values, formula, citation) and noting annual-average precision, which goes beyond the structured 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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose, include an illustrative example, and convey key details about country support, return values, and precision. No redundant text.

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 no output schema, so the description's mention of return values and precision is important. It covers the core function well, but does not mention potential limitations such as year range constraints or data availability, which would be useful for full completeness.

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 only 25% (country has a description). The description compensates by explaining amounts and years via the example and stating the default country. It does not detail each parameter individually, but the provided context is sufficient for a user to infer correct usage.

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 converts a nominal amount between years using official CPI, with a concrete example ('what is 100 in 1995 money worth in today's money?'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like fx_convert, which handles currency conversion.

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 when to use it (inflation adjustment for any country with CPI data, default USA) and provides an illustrative example. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using fx_convert for currency exchange rather than inflation adjustment.

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