calculate_cagr

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output is a percentage, which is a useful detail, but it does not state input validity requirements (e.g., beginning_value must be positive), edge-case handling (e.g., zero or negative years), or rounding behavior. The disclosure is minimal and leaves much to be inferred.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and output format. Every word contributes value: 'calculate' identifies the action, 'compound annual growth rate (CAGR)' names the target metric, and 'as a percentage' specifies the output. It is appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool and perfectly front-loaded.

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 lacks annotations, has a schema with no parameter descriptions, and the description is just one sentence, the overall context is incomplete. The description does not cover input prerequisites, edge cases, or usage context. Although an output schema likely exists, it does not fill the gaps left by the sparse description and schema. For a tool that requires three parameters, this is insufficient for confident use.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters. The parameter names (beginning_value, ending_value, years) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions by explaining units, valid ranges, or relationships (e.g., beginning_value must be greater than zero for CAGR to be defined). The agent is left entirely to guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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's function: calculating compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and returning it as a percentage. It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and a specific resource ('compound annual growth rate'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like CAPM cost of equity or WACC rate. The metric name alone makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context such as 'for historical financial growth analysis' or exclude cases like 'not for simple growth rates'. There is no indication of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should or should not be invoked.

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