inflation_adjusted_return

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe calculation tool. The description adds useful context about what the tool shows ('difference between nominal growth and actual purchasing power growth'), but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like computational limits, rounding behavior, or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences that each earn their place: the core function, what it shows, and when to use it. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no 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?

Given the presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description provides adequate context for this calculation tool. It explains the purpose and value proposition well, though it could benefit from mentioning the formula or mathematical approach used.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 specific action ('calculate the real return') and resource ('investment'), with explicit differentiation from nominal growth. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on inflation adjustment rather than basic compound interest or other financial calculations.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('useful for understanding if your investments are truly beating inflation'), which implicitly suggests alternatives like nominal return calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or mention specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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