calculate_inflation_adjustment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It notes that the tool uses a constant inflation rate and returns adjusted value and total inflation factor, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or edge cases. For a simple calculator, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise (67 characters across two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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, output schema present), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, inputs, and outputs. It could mention edge cases (e.g., negative years) or clarify the constant-rate assumption, but overall it is complete enough for its complexity.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by reiterating inputs ('amount, inflation rate %, years'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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's purpose: 'Adjust a nominal amount to a target year using a constant inflation rate. Use for real-value comparisons across time.' It specifies the verb (adjust), resource (nominal amount), and application (real-value comparisons), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 advises using the tool for real-value comparisons across time and references list_bundles for related calculators. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, leaving room for improvement.

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