Laske inflaatio / rahan ostovoima

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the data source (Tilastokeskuksen elinkustannusindeksi), the coverage from 1951, and the default behavior of the target year. It does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., index is annual, not monthly), but for a simple conversion tool with these annotations, the added context is solid.

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 compact — two sentences. The first sentence states the verb, resource, and data source; the second provides a concrete example and the default behavior. There is zero filler, and the most critical information (what it does, example, default) is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters, a 100% covered schema, and annotations indicating a read-only, idempotent operation, the description covers the essentials: purpose, example, and default target year. It does not specify the exact return format, but the example implies a numeric monetary amount, which is reasonable for this kind of conversion. Given no output schema exists, a slight gap remains, but the description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% — all three parameters (summa, vuosi_alku, vuosi_loppu) have descriptive text explaining their roles and constraints (e.g., minimum 1951, optional target year). The description reiterates the example and the default but does not add new parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for any missing details.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Muuntaa' (converts) and a precise resource: purchasing power of a money amount between years using Statistics Finland's cost-of-living index. It includes a concrete example ('paljonko 1000 € vuonna 1985 on nyt') that clarifies the intent. None of the sibling tools handle inflation or monetary conversion, so the purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinguished.

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 gives a clear usage context via the example and states the default for the target year (most recent). It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but since the sibling tools are all unrelated (procurement, stock prices, weather, VAT, etc.), the intended use case is evident. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, but the example and scope ('vuodesta 1951') provide sufficient guidance.

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