calculate_nps_projection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds the behavior of calculating corpus and pension, which is consistent and sufficient, but no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, no fluff, and efficiently communicates purpose and usage. Every word earns its place.

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 simple calculate tool with 6 parameters (all described in schema) and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand its use. Could include example values but not strictly necessary.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 NPS corpus and monthly pension at retirement, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'NPS' and the use case 'planning retirement with NPS or projecting pension'.

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 clear context: 'Use when planning retirement with NPS or projecting pension.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names implicitly differentiate (e.g., calculate_epf_esic for EPF).

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