calculate_inflation_adjusted_value

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Returns real value' but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a calculation tool, minimal behavioral disclosure is acceptable, but more detail on the output meaning would improve transparency.

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, front-loading purpose and usage. It is concise with no redundant words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., list inputs).

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?

The description explains the purpose, use case, and inputs. It mentions the output (real value) and directs to related tools. For a 3-parameter calculation tool, this is sufficient, though more precision on what 'real value' means (e.g., base-year euros) would enhance 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates inputs ('nominal future amount, years, average inflation %') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. No examples, units (aside from 'EUR' in schema), or constraints are given.

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 inflation-adjusted purchasing power and specifies a use case (retirement/savings goal in today's euros). This distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_inflation_adjustment and future value calculations.

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 explicitly says 'Use for retirement or savings goal in today's euros' and points to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to direct alternatives.

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