calculate_us_401k

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 discloses the output structure but does not mention behavioral traits like IRS limit assumptions, idempotency, or side effects. It is basic but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with clear, front-loaded information: purpose in first sentence, output and cross-reference in second. No wasted words.

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?

For a calculation tool with well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could improve by noting default values or assumptions, but the current version is sufficient.

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% with all 5 parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only lists output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Calculate US 401(k) contribution, employer match, and total retirement savings' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing list_bundles for related 'finance-us' calculators.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool calculates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. The reference to list_bundles suggests related tools but no direct guidance.

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