calculate_nps_projection

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read-only calculation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming returned outputs: projected corpus, lump sum, and monthly pension estimate, supplemented by the 'estimate' qualifier. No side effects, mutations, or hidden dependencies are described, which is appropriate given the calculation tool.

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 purpose-first and then includes a usage line, a succinct Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence is informative and there is no filler, but the Args block largely duplicates the schema and could be trimmed without losing meaning, so it is not a 5.

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 deterministic calculation nature, the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the fully documented schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for reliable usage. It states the input domain, the output nature, and the retirement-planning context. Nothing necessary for correct selection or invocation is missing.

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%, and the description essentially repeats the parameter names and short meanings already present in the input schema. For example, 'annuity_rate: Annuity rate %' adds no information beyond the schema's 'Annuity rate percentage.' The only marginal addition is calling out 'corpus to buy annuity (min 40%)', but that constraint already appears in the schema. This lands at the baseline 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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Calculate NPS corpus and monthly pension at retirement.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_sip_returns or calculate_sukanya_samriddhi, because it is the only NPS retirement projection tool in the list.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use when planning retirement with NPS or projecting pension.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly say which alternative tools to use for non-NPS projections or list exclusions, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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