calculate_present_value

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly describes the computation but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free. It mentions return values (PV, discount factor) which adds some transparency, but behavioral traits like authentication, limits, or determinism are absent.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. It avoids unnecessary detail. Minor improvement would be grouping inputs/outputs more clearly, but overall it is efficient.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and usage context. It is sufficient for a calculator tool, though examples or edge cases could 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 parameters are already well-documented. The description redundantly lists inputs but does not add new information beyond the schema. The mention of returns (PV and discount factor) is useful but pertains to output, not parameter semantics.

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 present value, with verb 'Compute' and resource 'present value'. It provides usage contexts like DCF and NPV, which clarifies purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'calculate_future_value' or other time-value calculators, which would strengthen clarity.

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 suggests use cases ('DCF, NPV, or retirement planning'), which provides context for when to use. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct alternative tools. The pointer to 'list_bundles' is indirect and does not substitute for clear usage boundaries.

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