calculate_recurring_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It specifies 'quarterly compounding', a key behavior. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, and no destructive or auth-related issues are expected for a calculation tool. The description is adequate but could mention other assumptions (e.g., interest reinvested).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks detail on parameter specifics and potential edge cases (e.g., rounding of compounding). For a calculation tool in a large suite, a bit more context on how the result is computed (e.g., formula) could help, but the current version meets basic needs.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings or units. The term 'fixed monthly deposit' hints at 'monthly_deposit', and 'quarterly compounding' relates to 'annual_rate' and 'months', but no explicit mapping or additional details (e.g., that annual_rate is in percentage, months as integer periods) are provided. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 calculates RD maturity for a fixed monthly deposit with quarterly compounding. It is specific to Recurring Deposits and includes usage context ('monthly bank RD maturity / interest'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_fixed_deposit or calculate_sip_returns.

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 hint ('Use for monthly bank RD maturity / interest'), indicating when to apply this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling calculators, which would improve clarity.

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