fast_calc_solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the binary-search plus engine method, return semantics for ok/nochange/range failure, and boundary warnings near ±90%/+300%. It also discloses that invest_pct includes tax amounts, progress payments, proportional adjustments, and a closure guard.

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 long and dense, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized by knob, target, want, and return semantics. Most sentences add distinct information, though some enum repetition could be trimmed.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it explains required inputs, parameter meanings, success and failure return shapes, boundary warnings, and when to seek baseline values first. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call or interpret the tool.

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 enums for knob, target, and want are already documented. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema, such as the exact financial meaning of invest_pct, the native units for IRR/NPV/payback, and the default behavior of want.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inverse calculation of financial indicators (IRR/NPV/payback) from five input text files and a target value. It names the sibling fast_calc_reports as a baseline prerequisite, so an agent can distinguish it from related calculation tools.

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?

It explicitly recommends using fast_calc_reports first to view baseline values before running this tool, and describes the default want=down versus want=up. It does not, however, explain when not to use this tool or compare it against all alternatives such as fast_calc_excel.

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