camelot_retirement_scenario_planner

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds 'Local browser processing', which is useful behavioral context, but does not describe output format, any side effects, or assumptions. Given the annotation coverage, the added value is modest but non-contradictory.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a brief processing note and a canonical URL. It is concise but includes a minor typo (double period) and the URL could be considered metadata rather than description. Still, it is efficient.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, for a projection tool with multiple inputs, it does not mention assumptions (e.g., constant contributions, growth compounding frequency) or edge cases like age validity. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 fully describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only vague references to compound interest and contribution schedules, which map to parameters but do not explain interactions or constraints. With schema doing the heavy lifting, the description meets the baseline of 3.

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 projects retirement savings growth using compound interest and contribution schedules, giving a specific verb (project) and resource (retirement savings growth). It is distinct enough from siblings like cash_flow_projection or investment_tracker, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many financial siblings (e.g., investment_tracker, emergency_fund_planner). It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or alternative routing.

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