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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the lender-limit ceiling logic, the conditional cash cap when `liquid_savings` is provided, the reporting of which limit binds, and the optional use of `address` to ground property tax and insurance in real rates. It also explicitly warns that this is not a comfort recommendation, preventing the agent from overstating the result.

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 front-loaded with the core question and then moves logically from formula to conditional behavior to outputs to the address option. The second paragraph is a single high-value caveat and routing note. Every sentence contributes information, with 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?

Even with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns: affordable price, PITI, DTIs, and cash to close. It explains when the liquid-savings constraint binds, how `address` affects tax/insurance inputs, and how the result should be used with sibling tools. This is enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the core parameters: annual income via gross income, front-end and back-end DTI caps with defaults, `liquid_savings`, and `address`. It does not explicitly define every optional parameter such as `fixed_rate`, `hoa_monthly`, `insurance_rate`, or `property_tax_rate`, though their names, defaults, and the DTI/PITI context make their roles reasonably inferable.

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 opens with a clear question and explicitly frames the tool as the reverse of `affordability`: solving for the maximum price instead of checking whether a specific home is affordable. It names the exact computation—maximum home price under front-end and back-end DTI caps—and clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus `affordability`: the question is 'what price can I afford?' rather than 'can I afford this specific home?'. It also gives follow-up guidance, directing the agent to feed the result into `affordability` or `buy_vs_rent` to check monthly slack, which provides clear routing and exclusion.

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