present_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the calculation purpose. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific inputs (beyond parameters), error handling, or output format. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function in minimal space, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the calculation formula, assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency), or what the result represents, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description mentions 'future cash flows' but doesn't explain the three parameters (futureValue, rate, time) beyond what the schema provides (0% coverage). It fails to clarify what units or formats these parameters expect (e.g., rate as percentage or decimal, time in years), leaving semantics ambiguous despite the schema defining types.

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 ('present value of future cash flows'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling financial tools like 'npv' or 'compound_interest', which might have overlapping functionality in 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 like 'npv' or other financial calculation siblings. It lacks context about specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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