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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: 'A lower rate with a longer term can still cost you more — see the true lifetime numbers,' revealing that the calculator compares total lifetime costs. However, it does not disclose the return format, assumptions (e.g., minimum payments), or that this is a read-only calculation, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short, with two sentences of substantive content. The initial 'Debt Consolidation Calculator —' title repetition is minor filler, but the rest is purposeful and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the key warning about rate versus term.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, so the description must provide almost all context. It gives a high-level purpose and warns about total costs, but it fails to explain input requirements, output details, or how it differs from adjacent siblings like debt_payoff_calculator. This leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 needs to compensate for the three parameters. It only vaguely references 'current debts' and 'consolidation loan' and alludes to rate and term ('lower rate... longer term'), but it does not explicitly explain the 'debts', 'consolidationAprPct', or 'consolidationTermMonths' parameters or their formats. This minimal compensation is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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: comparing current debts against a single consolidation loan. It uses the specific verb 'see how compare' and references the resource (debts and consolidation loan), which distinguishes it from sibling calculators like debt_payoff_calculator or balance_transfer_calculator.

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 implies usage context—when considering consolidating multiple debts into one loan—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions. The sentence 'See how your current debts compare against one new consolidation loan' suggests a scenario but lacks clear 'when to use' guidance.

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