calc_compound_growth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe what inputs are required, how the calculation works, what outputs are returned, or any edge cases. The tool's behavior remains essentially unknown.

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 extremely short, which is good for conciseness, but it is a fragmented phrase rather than a well-structured sentence. It lacks a clear subject-verb-object framing and does not earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond the tool name.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, input requirements, output format, or any operational context. An agent would not be able to use this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The list 'future_value | present_value | cagr' hints at possible values for the 'operation' parameter, providing minimal semantic information. However, it does not explain the meaning or roles of the other eight parameters, leaving all parameter semantics largely undefined.

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 'COMPUTE. future_value | present_value | cagr' is a terse fragment that lists possible operations but fails to clearly state that this tool calculates compound growth metrics. It provides minimal clarification of the tool's purpose and does not distinguish it from sibling calculation tools like calc_metric or calc_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no context for an agent to decide between calc_compound_growth and other similar tools.

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