calculate_step_up_sip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no side-effect warning is needed. The description adds some output context ('Corpus comparison between step-up and flat SIP') but does not disclose computation assumptions such as timing of annual increments or whether returns are pre-tax; this is plausible but not fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a use-case and expected return. The Args list is slightly redundant with the input schema, but it keeps the description self-contained and readable.

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 tool is simple, fully annotated, has a complete input schema, and has an output schema signal. The description covers the scenario, arguments, and what is returned, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

All four parameters have complete schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The Args section mostly mirrors the schema descriptions without adding units, constraints, or examples, so the description does not meaningfully increase semantic richness beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Calculate SIP with annual step-up increment.' It also clarifies the comparison use case ('step-up SIP vs flat SIP'), which distinguishes it from plain SIP calculators like calculate_sip_returns.

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 comparing step-up SIP vs flat SIP or planning salary-linked investments.' However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it misses the exclusion-level guidance needed for a top score.

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