calculate_emergency_fund

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level inputs and outputs. It does not disclose the underlying assumptions (e.g., that each profile maps to a different expense multiplier), what happens when monthly_saving or current_savings are 0 (e.g., undefined time-to-build), or whether this is a pure deterministic 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names both outputs before the inputs, with zero filler words. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately scannable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not cover the return format, the role of optional saving parameters, or the profile-specific assumptions. For a 4-parameter financial calculator, the absence of edge-case and assumption disclosure leaves meaningful gaps in what an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms that monthly_expenses and profile drive the ideal value, which slightly reinforces the enum's role, but it adds no real semantic detail beyond the schema—monthly_saving and current_savings are only implied through 'quanto tempo leva para montar.'

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 states a specific verb ('Calcula'), a specific resource ('reserva de emergência'), and the two concrete outputs (ideal value and time to build). The domain is distinct enough among the sibling calculators that an agent would not confuse it with most of them, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the adjacent calculate_financial_independence.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_financial_independence or calculate_budget. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or prerequisite inputs, so the agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and domain.

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