pension_projection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It vaguely hints at calculations (compound growth, annuity, drawdown) but lacks specifics on assumptions, return values, or side effects. For a financial projection tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely brief, almost a tagline. While it wastes no words, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Important information is omitted for brevity.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the projection returns (e.g., annual values, final pot, depletion year), or handle edge cases like missing optional parameters. Sibling tools suggest a financial planning suite, but this tool's specific contribution is unclear.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'compound growth', 'annuity', and 'drawdown-years' which loosely map to growthRate, annuityRate, and years, but does not clarify units, meaning of 'years' (contribution years? drawdown years?), or the role of annualContrib. The defaults for growthRate and annuityRate are not explained.

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 pension projection using compound growth, annuity, and drawdown-years. It gives a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pension_annual_allowance' or 'portfolio_analysis'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools handle related but distinct tasks, but no comparisons are provided.

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