get_savings_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds useful interpretive context ('Higher is better; negative means the user spent more than they earned') and notes that it uses cash flow analytics, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, data limitations, or return format. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core formula and purpose, and adds a meaningful interpretation note without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 schema fully documents parameters and there is no output schema, the description provides the essential formula and interpretation. It could mention the output format or edge cases (e.g., zero income), but overall it gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the formula, but it does mention income and spending which map conceptually to the analytics, providing mild semantic reinforcement.

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 identifies the tool as computing the savings rate, provides the exact formula, and states it expresses the result as a percentage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cash_flow_summary or list_transactions by focusing on a derived metric.

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 phrase 'over a period' implies the need for a date range, and the formula implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It offers some situational context but lacks explicit guidance or alternative references.

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