plan_education

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions inflation adjustment and monthly SIP calculation, but omits details like required permissions, side effects, or output format. As a calculation tool, read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 very concise with two sentences covering purpose and key features. It is front-loaded. However, it lacks structured formatting like bullet points that would improve readability for an AI agent.

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not describe the output (e.g., SIP amount, future cost) despite the presence of an output schema. Parameter details are incomplete, and usage context is missing.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries full burden. It adds context for inflation_rate (typically higher than CPI) and mentions SIP, but does not explain other parameters like current_savings, expected_return, child_current_age, education_start_age, or current_education_cost.

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 it plans for child's education expense, adjusting for inflation and calculating monthly SIP. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'plan_retirement' which focus on retirement. However, it could be more specific about the exact output or scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies use for child education planning, it does not mention siblings like 'plan_financial_goal' or 'calculate_sip_needed', nor does it state when not to use it.

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