calc_irr

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'COMPUTE' and offers no details on input handling, side effects, or assumptions. This is minimal and does not clarify how the tool behaves beyond the fact that it computes something.

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 ('COMPUTE. Internal Rate of Return.'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary details about inputs and context, so it is not appropriately structured for effective use.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the cashflows format, the role of the guess parameter, or what the return value represents, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It mentions neither 'cashflows' nor 'guess', leaving the meaning of both parameters entirely unexplained. No value is added beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'COMPUTE' and the resource 'Internal Rate of Return', which clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like calc_npv or calc_metric, which are also financial calculations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or use cases. It is a bare statement with no usage direction.

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