plan_financial_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it adjusts for inflation and calculates SIP, but does not explain other behavioral traits such as assumptions about returns (expected_return default 12%), whether it accounts for taxes, or that it is a simulation without modifying real data. More transparency would be beneficial.

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, front-loaded with goal types, then core actions. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy. Highly 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 has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and key actions (inflation adjustment, SIP calculation). The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, additional details on assumptions or edge cases would improve completeness.

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 only implicitly mentions target_amount_today, years_to_goal, inflation_rate, current_savings, and expected_return. It does not explain the role or format of each parameter, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The description should provide more detail to compensate for the lack of 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Plan' and resource 'financial goal' with specific examples (education, house, car, wedding). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it adjusts for inflation and calculates monthly SIP, which is a comprehensive planning action rather than a single calculation.

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 comprehensive goal planning with inflation and SIP, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. Sibling tools like calculate_sip_needed or calculate_future_value are simpler, so the agent can infer context but lacks explicit guidance.

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