compound_growth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the annual decimal rate format, the allowed compounding frequencies, and which parameters are needed for each operation. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., negative years) or the exact return format, but for a pure calculation tool, this level of detail is adequate and useful.

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 and well-structured: it opens with the overall purpose, then lists operations and parameters in a clear format. The use of backticks and pipes makes it scannable. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of schema defaults or obvious filler.

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, 3 operations), the description covers the necessary operating contexts: what each operation computes, the inputs it needs, and the rate/compounding semantics. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for typical use cases.

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. It explains the meaning of 'rate' (annual decimal), 'compounding' (allowed values), and enumerates which parameters are required for each operation. It does not explicitly describe 'currency' or 'begin_value'/'end_value' beyond their role in operations, but the operation context makes their purpose clear. This meaningfully supplements 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 clearly identifies the tool as compound-interest/growth math with specific operations (future value, present value, CAGR). It distinguishes itself from siblings like net_present_value and loan_amortization by focusing on single-sum growth calculations. The verb 'compound-interest / growth math' is specific and the listed operations clarify the resource.

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 explains when to use the tool by listing the three operations and the required parameters for each. It implicitly differentiates from siblings (e.g., using this instead of net_present_value for simple growth). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of a full 'when-not-to-use' guideline.

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