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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying the output format (stressed DSCR per scenario with a verdict) and emphasizing the rate unit (percent). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, and it provides useful detail about what the tool returns.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output. The clarification about rate units is essential and placed at the end without unnecessary filler. No 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?

The description omits important details about the stress scenarios (e.g., the magnitude of rate shocks or income decline, or whether they are predefined) and the role of minDscr in the verdict. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide a fuller picture of the expected behavior and inputs, but it leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter usage. It only clarifies the rate unit (already in schema) but does not explain other parameters like netOperatingIncome, propertyValue, or especially minDscr, which determines the pass/fail threshold. The description does not mention how scenarios map to input 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Stress a loan against rate shocks, income decline, and combined scenarios') and specifies the output (stressed DSCR per scenario with pass/marginal/fail verdict). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_scenario', which could be a similar scenario analysis tool.

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 for stress testing (e.g., 'the same tests a credit committee runs'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_scenario' or 'calculate_metrics'. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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