calculate_fixed_deposit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions what the tool calculates (maturity and effective yield) and allowed compounding values. It does not describe rounding, precision, whether it returns total amount or just interest, or any caveats like early withdrawal or tax implications.

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 short: one sentence and a list of compounding options. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no irrelevant information. It could be considered minimally concise, though it could include more detail without being verbose.

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 4 parameters (3 required) with no schema descriptions, and an output schema exists, the description should explain parameter meaning and usage. It only covers compounding options, leaving principal, annual_rate, and years undocumented. This is insufficient for a financial calculation tool where units and constraints matter.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter. It only lists compounding frequencies, which hints at the 'compounding' parameter, but fails to describe 'principal', 'annual_rate', and 'years' (e.g., units, format, or valid range). This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance despite the schema defining the parameters.

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 it calculates FD maturity and effective yield, lists compounding options, and explicitly states the use case ('Use for bank/NBFC FD maturity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_ppf or calculate_epf, which handle different instruments.

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 provides a usage context ('Use for bank/NBFC FD maturity'), which implies its scope but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar fixed-income calculations, but no guidance on avoiding inappropriate usage is given.

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