calculate_irr

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

The description discloses the bisection method, which gives insight into the algorithm. However, it does not mention potential issues like multiple IRR solutions, convergence problems, or the assumption of periodic cash flows. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but is only partially informative.

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?

Highly concise, using three short sentences to convey the purpose, definition, and key parameter detail. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded with the main action.

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 domain (oil & gas from sibling tools), the description is generic and does not mention typical usage scenarios or constraints. An output schema exists but is not provided, so return values are unknown. The description covers the basics but could be more comprehensive regarding assumptions and limitations.

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 adds valuable meaning to the cash_flows parameter by specifying they are monthly, in dollars, and that the first element is typically negative (capex). This goes beyond the schema which has no property descriptions and covers 0% of the parameter documentation. It could further clarify sign conventions or minimum length.

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 it calculates Internal Rate of Return via bisection, and the relation to NPV=0 adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_npv, though the name and context make it distinct enough.

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 calculate_npv or calculate_breakeven_price. It does not provide any context for appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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