calculate_financial_independence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the 4% rule / custom withdrawal rate approach, but it does not state what the output contains, whether current_savings and monthly_investment are used to project time-to-independence, or what assumptions apply to the 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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, the goal, and the calculation method with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With five parameters and no output schema, the one-sentence description leaves important invocation context unstated: what the returned value looks like, whether it also projects years to independence, and how optional savings/investment inputs interrelate. It is sufficient for tool selection but not for confident invocation and interpretation.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented; the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the custom withdrawal rate, but it does not clarify how current_savings and monthly_investment affect the result.

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 uses the specific verb 'Calcula' with a clear object: how much money must be accumulated to live on investment income. It also names the central methodology (4% rule or custom rate), which clearly separates it from sibling calculators like calculate_emergency_fund or calculate_investment_return.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculate_emergency_fund, calculate_budget, or calculate_investment_return. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'para viver de renda'; no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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