calculate_kvp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool doubles money and returns the tenure, but it does not specify assumptions like compounding frequency, output unit (years vs. months), or handle edge cases. Minimal disclosure.

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, consisting of two sentences. However, the first sentence uses a dash and semicolon that slightly impair readability. Overall, it is efficient and each part adds value.

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 a specific use case. An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented there. Still, for a simple tool with no annotations, the description could be more detailed, such as specifying that the tenure is in years.

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?

The description only implicitly mentions the interest rate ('at the given interest rate') and does not explain the principal parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying both parameters, but it falls short.

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's purpose: it returns the tenure required for doubling money in KVP at a given interest rate. The verb 'returns' and resource 'tenure for KVP' are specific, and the phrase 'how long to double my money in KVP' distinguishes it from 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?

The description provides an explicit use case ('Use for 'how long to double my money in KVP''), which gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., rule_of_72), which would help distinguish it from similar calculations.

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