calculate_fire_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: 'pure local math, no data leaves the machine' indicates a privacy-safe, deterministic operation. It also discloses conditional output behavior based on optional parameters, though it could mention error/edge cases.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: the first conveys the core function and conditional outputs, the second adds a privacy guarantee. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose, and the main verb appears immediately.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core calculation, conditional extensions, and privacy. It lacks explicit return format details or edge-case handling, but the domain is simple enough that the description provides a reasonably complete picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., annual expenses + withdrawal_rate yield base FIRE; adding net worth/savings/return gives progress and years). This goes beyond individual schema descriptions and helps the agent understand how parameters combine.

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 a FIRE number from explicit inputs (annual expenses, withdrawal rate) and extends to progress metrics when additional data is provided. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (info/percentile lookups) by focusing on financial calculation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool (for FIRE calculations) and explains that optional parameters enable advanced outputs. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are topically distinct, making the usage context clear without needing direct comparisons.

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