calculate_annuity_fv

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states basic functionality and annuity types. It lacks disclosure of assumptions (e.g., compounding per period), error handling, or limitations. The description does not compensate for the missing annotation 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the tool, the second explains the two annuity types. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits details critical for correct usage: frequency impact, rate format, and parameter interdependencies. For a moderately complex financial tool among many siblings, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond parameter names. It explains that payment is periodic and annual_rate is per annum, but fails to clarify default frequency ('monthly') or how years and frequency interact. The annuity_type parameter is partially explained.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates future value of regular periodic payments (annuity/SIP) and distinguishes between ordinary and annuity due. This differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_annuity_pv (present value) and calculate_future_value (single sum).

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 implicitly conveys usage for annuity future value calculations but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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