calculate_epf

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that contributions are monthly compounding and includes salary growth. However, it does not describe what the output contains or any assumptions about withdrawal rules or taxes.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use-case hint. No wasted words.

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's apparent simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is borderline adequate. It covers the main functionality but misses parameter guidance and does not leverage existing structured metadata.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not elaborate on any of the 6 parameters. Parameter names like 'monthly_basic' are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional meaning or usage hints.

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 it calculates EPF retirement corpus with salary growth and monthly compounding. The tool name and description align, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, many of which are other financial calculators.

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 a specific use case: 'how big will my EPF/PF be at retirement'. This tells the agent when to select this tool. However, no when-not or alternative tool suggestions are given.

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