analyze_expense_ratio_impact

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies the tool is a read-only analysis (no mutations), but does not explicitly state that it does not modify any data or require authentication. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but more transparency about side effects or assumptions would improve this.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundancy, and effectively front-loads the primary action. Every word adds value. It achieves clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has 5 parameters and 0% parameter descriptions in the schema, the description does not sufficiently detail how to fill parameters (e.g., formats, ranges, examples). The output schema exists, but the description leaves the agent to infer parameter semantics from names, which may lead to incorrect invocations. A more complete description would include typical values or constraints.

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?

The description hints at the purpose of parameters (investment amount, annual return, expense ratio, years) and the optional comparison, but it does not specify units (e.g., percentage for rates, currency for amount) or provide examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should offer more detail to guide correct parameter usage.

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 shows how expense ratio affects mutual fund returns over time, with an optional comparison feature. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the resource (expense ratio impact). While it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on expense ratio, it could be more precise about the mathematical nature (e.g., compounding).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_future_value or compare_lumpsum_vs_sip. It does not specify any prerequisites, when not to use it, or which specific scenarios benefit from the comparison feature. The description only mentions the optional comparison but lacks context for decision-making.

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