calculate_burn_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It explains the computation (returns burn, runway, profitability date) and required inputs, but does not disclose any side effects, limits, or performance characteristics. Basic transparency is achieved.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and quickly covers inputs, outputs, and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, inputs, and outputs. It also references a related bundle, adding completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline semantic detail. The description reiterates input names (cash on hand, monthly expenses, monthly revenue) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Output description adds some context.

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 computes startup monthly burn rate and runway, listing inputs and outputs. It mentions a related bundle, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling financial calculators like calculate_churn_rate.

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?

The description specifies use cases: 'Use for fundraising or expense control.' It also directs users to 'list_bundles' for related calculators, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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