calculate_contingency_fund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool computes target and shortfall but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or detailed behavior beyond that. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers the essential purpose and usage for moderate complexity. Could explain how the shortfall is derived (e.g., target - existing_fund) but output schema exists, so return values are not required. Good enough for a calculation tool.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'monthly_expenses' and 'months_target' implicitly via the recommendation but does not describe 'existing_fund'. It partially compensates but not fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool calculates contingency/emergency fund target and shortfall. However, there is a nearly identical sibling 'calculate_emergency_fund' and no distinction is made, so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

Provides explicit example questions ('how big should my emergency fund be', 'am I covered if I lose my job') and a recommendation (3-6 months of expenses, 12 if irregular). Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear.

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