calculate_sip_returns

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions outputs but does not disclose assumptions like compounding frequency, payment timing (beginning/end of period), or how step-up is applied. This is a significant gap for a financial calculation.

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 filler. Front-loaded with tool purpose, then lists outputs, then parameter detail. Every sentence 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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, missing assumptions about compounding and payment timing leave the model uncertain. Adequate but not thorough for a financial tool with no annotations.

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%, but description explains the optional step_up_percentage parameter with an example. Other parameters are self-explanatory from names, but units (e.g., annual return as percentage) are not explicitly stated. Partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 SIP returns and lists key outputs (future value, total invested, wealth gained). It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_sip_needed which computes required SIP amount.

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 usage for SIP return calculation but does not specify when to prefer this over related tools like compare_lumpsum_vs_sip. No explicit guidelines on prerequisites or conditions.

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