calculate_inflation_adjustment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It mentions the return of 'adjusted value and total inflation factor,' which is helpful, but does not state any side effects, authentication needs, or that it is a read-only calculation. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with two sentences plus a brief list and reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and usage, making it easy to parse quickly. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose, usage, inputs, outputs, and a reference to related tools. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the parameters (amount, inflation rate, years) but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 it adjusts a nominal amount for inflation using a constant rate, which is a specific verb-resource combo. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other calculators, though the reference to list_bundles provides some context.

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 includes 'Use for real-value comparisons across time,' which indicates when to use. It does not specify when not to use or alternatives, though it references list_bundles for related tools. This provides basic guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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