calculate_annuity_pv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states it calculates a value, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any limitations, input constraints, or side effects. More detail needed.

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, clear and front-loaded with no extraneous words. Every sentence provides useful context.

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 lacks detail on parameter usage and nuances like annuity type. For a tool with 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable.

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%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It mentions 'regular periodic payments' which links to 'payment', 'years', and 'frequency', but does not explain 'annual_rate', 'annuity_type', or their defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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 calculates present value of regular periodic payments, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides practical use cases (loan payments, pension, lease payments), which differentiates it from sibling tools like calculate_present_value (single sum) and calculate_annuity_fv (future value).

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 mentions use cases but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings. There is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.

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