irr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Newton-Raphson' hints at an iterative numerical method and possible convergence limitations, but the description does not address issues like multiple IRRs for non-conventional cash flows, the rate convention (e.g., per period or annualized), or what happens if the method fails to converge.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's calculation target and method. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 combined with the schema covers the essential mechanics of a simple one-parameter function, especially since an output schema exists. However, it lacks usage context and numerical caveats that would help an agent decide when to call this tool versus sibling financial calculations, and it does not clarify periodicity or edge-case behavior.

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, including the convention that index 0 is the initial outlay and that a minimum of 2 cash flows is required. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Internal Rate of Return of cash flows'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. Mentioning 'Newton-Raphson' also helps distinguish it from more generic sibling tools like financial_calc or npv.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like npv or loan_comparison. The description only implies usage when an IRR calculation is needed, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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