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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses that execution is deterministic and that it mirrors size_loan's math, which is meaningful for a calculation tool. It does not address side effects, output shape, or failure modes, but for a pure what-if calculator the determinism statement provides baseline transparency.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the action and modes, and the second sentence adds a useful deterministic/swept qualifier without redundancy. No filler or wasted words.

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 tool with 8 parameters, a nested thresholds object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse to guide a correct call. It does not explain how to assemble a rate ladder or NOI sensitivity run, which constraints are needed, or what the result shape is, so an agent would need to consult size_loan or guess.

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, the description was expected to compensate, but it only loosely maps modes to concepts ('rate ladder', 'NOI sensitivity table', 'feasibility...constraint') and never names the arrays, nested thresholds, required netOperatingIncome/estimatedValue, or totalCost. The agent is left to infer parameter roles from field names and sibling behavior, which is insufficient for 8 parameters.

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 names a concrete action ('run what-if loan sizing'), enumerates the three supported modes, and anchors the tool in relation to a sibling ('same math as size_loan, swept'), so an agent can tell it apart from a single-point size_loan call. The core purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool for 'what-if' and 'range of assumptions', which describes when to reach for it. The reference to size_loan and 'swept' hints that a single deterministic sizing could go to size_loan, but it does not spell out when-not-to-use or alternatives such as stress_test.

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