future_value

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation action but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with zero waste: 'Calculate future value of present amount.' It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (financial calculation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with parameters 'presentValue', 'rate', and 'periods' only defined by type. The description adds no semantic context—it doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., rate as percentage, periods as time units), their units, or valid ranges. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: 'Calculate future value of present amount.' It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and identifies the resource ('future value'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'present_value' or other financial calculators, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (e.g., 'present_value', 'calculate_npv', 'calculate_irr'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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