calculate_retirement_savings_gap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'projects' and 'identifies shortfall,' implying a read-only calculation. It lists inputs and returns, which is sufficient transparency for a calculator tool. It does not mention any side effects or destructive behavior, which 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 three sentences long, clearly stating purpose, inputs, and cross-reference. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be separating the cross-reference into a separate note.

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 5 required parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: it names inputs, says returns 'projected balance and gap,' and points to related tools. It does not explain edge cases or assumptions, but that is acceptable for a calculator tool with a well-defined schema.

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 schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description lists input names but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It uses slightly different wording ('target income' vs 'monthly_income'), but does not clarify dependencies or formatting.

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 what the tool does: 'Project retirement savings vs need and identify shortfall.' It specifies the verb ('project', 'identify'), the resource ('retirement savings gap'), and distinguishes itself from many sibling 'calculate_*' tools by focusing on retirement planning.

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 says 'Use for retirement planning,' which gives a usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. It references list_bundles for related calculators, hinting at alternatives, but lacks direct guidance on when to choose this tool over others.

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