calculate_future_value

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

With no annotations, the description transparently discloses it is a calculation (no side effects), provides the formula, and describes compounding options, though it does not mention error handling or return format.

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 redundancy: the first states the purpose, the second provides the formula and compounding options. Every word contributes.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and formula, but given the 0% schema coverage and 4 parameters, it could be more complete by explaining parameter units or format (e.g., rate as decimal). The output schema exists but its content is not referenced.

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%, and the description only elaborates on 'compounding' with examples, leaving present_value, annual_rate, and years meaningfully undescribed beyond what the schema names suggest.

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 future value of a lump sum investment with compounding, includes the formula, and lists compounding frequencies, distinguishing it from related siblings like calculate_present_value and calculate_annuity_fv.

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 implies it is for lump sum investments and lists compounding options, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or exclude scenarios like periodic payments.

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