net_present_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates NPV but doesn't describe what the calculation returns, whether it handles edge cases (like negative cash flows), what units the parameters should be in, or any limitations. For a financial calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 - a single sentence in Chinese that translates to 'Calculate the net present value (NPV) of investment projects.' While it could be more informative, it's not verbose or repetitive. Every word serves a purpose, though more content would be beneficial.

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 complexity of financial calculations, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what NPV calculation returns, how to interpret results, parameter requirements, or provide any context about the mathematical formula being applied. For a tool with 3 parameters performing financial analysis, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, so all 3 parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'initial_investment', 'cash_flows', or 'discount_rate' represent, their expected formats (e.g., currency units, time periods for cash flows, discount rate as decimal or percentage), or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states the tool calculates net present value (NPV) for investment projects, which is a specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'internal_rate_of_return' or 'present_value_annuity' which are related financial analysis tools. The description is clear about what it does but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 are several related financial tools in the sibling list (internal_rate_of_return, present_value_annuity, future_value_annuity, bond_price, compound_interest) but the description offers no comparison or context for choosing NPV over these other financial analysis methods.

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