compound_interest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It states what the tool calculates but doesn't describe the mathematical formula used, units for parameters, typical output format, error conditions, or computational characteristics. For a financial calculation tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just one Chinese sentence ('计算复利投资的未来价值'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words. While it may be too brief for adequate documentation, it achieves perfect conciseness within its limited scope.

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 4-parameter financial calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the mathematical model, parameter semantics, return format, or usage context. The agent would need to guess parameter meanings and the calculation approach, which is inadequate for reliable tool invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'principal', 'annual_rate', 'periods', or 'compounding_frequency' represent, their expected units (e.g., percentage vs decimal for rate), or how they interact in the calculation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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's purpose as '计算复利投资的未来价值' (calculate the future value of compound interest investment), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'future_value_annuity' by focusing specifically on compound interest rather than annuities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other financial calculation tools like 'bond_price' or 'net_present_value' beyond the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when compound interest calculations are appropriate compared to simple interest (not in sibling list) or other financial tools like 'future_value_annuity' or 'net_present_value'. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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