calculate_compound_interest

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses return values ('final amount, total interest, yearly breakdown') which adds value. No mention of side effects, but as a calculator, mutation is unlikely. Transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences plus a pointer to list_bundles. Front-loaded with purpose and formula. No redundancy, every sentence 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?

Given output schema existence and low complexity, the description is complete. It specifies output components (final amount, total interest, yearly breakdown) and points to related tools. No gaps identified.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds the formula and default compounding frequency, but these are already implied or present in schema. Minimal extra value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it computes compound interest using the formula A=P(1+r/n)^(nt) and lists use cases (savings, retirement, investment). It distinguishes from simple interest by name but does not differentiate from the sibling 'calculate_compound_interest_monthly'.

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?

Provides when-to-use context ('Use for savings, retirement projections, investment forecasting') and hints at related tools via 'See list_bundles...', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives like 'calculate_simple_interest'.

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