calculate_npv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates NPV but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, what format the result is in, error handling, or any computational assumptions. For a financial calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool.

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 complexity of financial calculations, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation (33% coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how cash flows are interpreted (e.g., timing), or any assumptions, making it inadequate for reliable use.

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 33% (only 'rate' has a description), with 'cashFlows' and 'initialInvestment' undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage. However, the schema provides basic structure, so it meets the minimum viable baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Net Present Value of cash flows'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_irr', 'calculate_mirr', or 'present_value', which are related 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. With many sibling tools for financial calculations (e.g., 'calculate_irr', 'present_value', 'analytics_dcf_valuation'), there's no indication of when NPV is preferred or what distinguishes it from other valuation methods.

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