calculate_rd_maturity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior and idempotency. The description adds the return value detail ('Maturity amount with total interest earned'), which is helpful but doesn't disclose calculation assumptions or edge cases. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief action line, a usage note, a parameter list, and a return note. Each section earn its place, and the flow makes it easy for an agent to quickly extract key usage criteria.

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?

The description covers the essential information for invoking the tool: what it does, when to use it, the required parameters, and what it returns. Since the output schema is noted as present, the return-value explanation may be redundant, but the description remains complete for a straightforward calculation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented meaningfully in the input schema. The description repeats those parameter descriptions without adding extra context or edge-case information that the schema lacks, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' with a clear resource ('Recurring Deposit maturity amount'), immediately identifying the tool's function. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_fd_maturity or calculate_sip_returns without needing to inspect schema details.

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 includes 'Use when projecting RD returns or planning recurring deposits,' which provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for similar calculations (e.g., FD or SIP), so it stops short of giving when-not-to-use guidance.

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