calculate_emergency_fund

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a computation returning a fund target and savings timeline. For a non-destructive, read-only calculator, this is sufficient and transparent.

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 reference to list_bundles. Front-loaded with key purpose, no waste. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple calculator with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers inputs, output, and related tools. It could mention the enum requirement for job_stability, but the schema already provides that.

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 baseline is 3. Description lists inputs using slightly different terminology ('income stability' vs. 'job_stability') but adds no new constraints or formatting details beyond the 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 an emergency fund target (3-6 months of expenses) for personal financial planning. It lists inputs and outputs, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from other financial calculators among many siblings, though the topic is specific.

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 contextual usage ('for personal financial planning') and references list_bundles for related calculators. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use or direct comparisons with alternatives.

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