calculate_retirement_savings_gap

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions inputs and outputs but has a mismatch: description lists 'monthly contribution' which is not in schema, and omits 'savings_rate'. Does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects.

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?

Description is three sentences, relatively concise. However, the list of inputs is inaccurate and could be structured better. No wasted words, but not fully earned.

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 huge sibling set and presence of output schema, the description should better distinguish this tool. It incompletely lists inputs and does not explain assumptions or distinguish from other retirement calculators. Hint to list_bundles is helpful but insufficient.

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, but description adds value incorrectly: it lists 'monthly contribution' (not in schema) and 'target income' (vaguely matches monthly_income) while omitting 'savings_rate'. This misleads rather than clarifies.

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 projects retirement savings vs need and identifies shortfall, which is a specific verb-resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from over 200 sibling calculator tools, though the name 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?

It says 'Use for retirement planning' and directs to list_bundles for related calculators. Provides context but no explicit when-not or alternative tools.

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