plan_retirement

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only calculation by saying 'calculates', but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or require authentication. The mention of 'accounts for inflation and pension shortfall' adds some context but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's label. The bullet-like list is efficient, though not perfectly structured. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more organized.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (9 parameters, many siblings) and existence of an output schema, the description only covers a subset of inputs and calculations. It omits key aspects like the role of returns rates and current savings, making it incomplete for a comprehensive calculator.

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%, yet the description only mentions a few of the 9 parameters (e.g., corpus, SIP, inflation, pension shortfall). It fails to explain key parameters like pre_retirement_return, post_retirement_return, and current_retirement_savings, leaving the agent without necessary context for correct invocation.

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's a 'comprehensive retirement planning calculator' and lists specific calculations (corpus needed, monthly SIP, inflation impact, pension shortfall). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_sip_needed which is more generic.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in similar domains, the absence of usage context limits the agent's ability to choose correctly.

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