calc_compound_interest

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 only states the purpose, failing to disclose behaviors like handling of negative rates, default assumptions for optional parameters, or output format (e.g., final value or periodic breakdown).

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 concise sentence without unnecessary words. However, it may be too terse for the tool's complexity; a slight expansion on parameters or output would improve usability.

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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical details like input units, examples, and return value structure, leaving an AI agent underinformed.

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%, yet the description adds no parameter explanations beyond what the schema names imply. It does not clarify whether 'annual_rate' is in decimal or percentage, nor how 'monthly_contribution' affects compounding.

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 calculates compound interest growth, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_mortgage or calc_bmi. However, it does not specify the inclusion of optional contributions or compounding frequency, leaving some ambiguity.

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 alternatives such as calc_mortgage or calc_tip. There are no prerequisites or context about input formats (e.g., annual rate as decimal or percentage).

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