investment_scenarios

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: scenarios default to compound_interest, operation can be overridden, and invalid scenarios are reported per-index. However, it does not specify what 'supported financial operation' means, nor how invalid scenarios affect overall execution, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three sentences long, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds crucial operational details (defaults, operation override, error reporting) with no redundant or filler content. 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 description covers the tool's purpose, scenario construction, defaults, operation override, and error handling, which is sufficient for a tool with one array parameter and an output schema. It does not enumerate supported operations, which is a minor gap, but overall it gives the agent enough context to invoke 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'scenarios', including its nested object fields. The description adds semantic value by stating the default operation (compound_interest) and the per-index error reporting, which the schema does not include. This raises it above the baseline of 3.

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+resource+outcome: 'Compare multiple investment scenarios and identify the highest return.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like npv, irr, or loan_comparison, which focus on single calculations or specific comparisons.

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 when comparing multiple investment scenarios and finding the best return, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. There is clear context, but no exclusions or named alternative tools, so it falls short of a 4.

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