cagr_calc

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a pure calculation with no side effects, but does not disclose any edge cases, constraints on input values (e.g., positive numbers), or behavior on invalid inputs. Score 3 as it is minimally adequate.

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, containing only a sentence and a list of parameters. No unnecessary words. However, it could be better structured by separating the purpose from parameter definitions, but overall it 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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about what constitutes valid input (e.g., positive numbers for periods) and the formula used (CAGR = (final/initial)^(1/periods)-1). Score 3 as it is minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats parameter names with vague one-word descriptions ('Starting value', 'Ending value', 'Number of periods'), adding little beyond the schema. It fails to specify units, allowed ranges, or that periods should be complete years. Score 2.

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 CAGR with three parameters (initial_value, final_value, periods). The verb 'calculate' and resource 'Compound Annual Growth Rate' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, but given the unique function, it is acceptably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely lists parameters without context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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