calculate_sukanya_samriddhi

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the output includes 'interest breakdown and tax status,' which helps the agent understand what the calculation returns. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and organized into clear usage, args, and returns sections. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it does not make the description bloated or hard to use.

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?

With complete parameter documentation, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description includes enough contextual guidance for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. Nothing material left 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter baseline is 3. The Args section in the description largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions, adding no significant new meaning beyond what is already available.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate SSY or SCSS maturity amount.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling calculators like calculate_ppf_maturity, calculate_fd_maturity, and calculate_sip_returns by naming the exact schemes it handles.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use when planning long-term savings for girl child (SSY) or retirement (SCSS).' This is clear guidance on when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions.

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