calculate_swp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose but does not mention assumptions (e.g., constant returns, no fees) or side effects. Adequate for a simple calculation tool but could be more transparent.

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 two sentences, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the acronym expansion and purpose. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 numeric inputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it misses potential edge cases or limitations, such as early depletion scenarios.

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 does not explain parameter units (e.g., whether annual_return is a percentage or decimal) or clarify that corpus is initial amount. The names are partially self-explanatory, but the lack of detail reduces clarity.

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 how long an investment corpus lasts with regular withdrawals, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_future_value and calculate_present_value.

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 SWP sustainability calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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