create_financial_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the steps (net worth, cash flow, emergency fund, etc.) and the canonical order. Lacks explicit mention of side effects or data persistence, but overall provides good behavioral insight.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose, but it's somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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 11 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema, the description covers the high-level process and output. It mentions the action plan components but lacks detail on output schema structure. Still fairly complete for a complex tool.

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%, so description must compensate. It names required parameters (age, monthly_income, monthly_expenses) and implies others are optional via defaults, but does not explain each parameter's meaning or unit. Adds context but not full parameter semantics.

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 creates a holistic financial plan from a user's life situation, specifying input (plain language financial story) and output (prioritized action plan). It distinctly differentiates from siblings by being the 'best first tool' and chaining multiple analyses.

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?

Explicitly says 'the best first tool when someone describes their finances in plain language' and advises to drill into specific calculators after. Provides clear when-to-use and suggests alternatives for detailed calculations.

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