simple_interest_calc

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only gives the formula without disclosing any behavioral traits such as rounding, precision, or error handling. It does not add value beyond the basic calculation.

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 a clear formula and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be better structured, e.g., separating the formula from parameter descriptions.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the input parameters. It does not need to explain return values. Some additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds meaningful context to each parameter: 'Annual interest rate (e.g. 5.0 for 5%)' and 'Time period in years'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is good, though more detail on units or constraints could be added.

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 purpose: 'Calculate simple interest' with the formula provided. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compound_interest and amortization_calc implicitly by specifying the simple interest 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compound interest or loan calculators. The description implies its use for basic interest calculation but does not mention exclusions or context.

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