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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains what happens (stress testing against specified shocks) and what is returned (stressed DSCR and verdicts). The unit clarification for rates is valuable. It does not address side effects, but the 'returns' phrasing implies a read-only calculation, which is reasonable for this tool.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scenarios, the second states the output and verdict, and the third gives the critical unit caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 covers scenarios, return value, verdict types, and rate units, which is strong for a no-output-schema tool. However, it omits the meaning of minDscr and the exact stress-test scenario parameters, leaving the agent to infer some input semantics from the schema names.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds only the rate-unit clarification, which is already present in the rate schema description. It does not explain minDscr, which appears to be the pass/marginal/fail threshold, nor does it clarify how propertyValue, loanAmount, or netOperatingIncome feed the scenarios.

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 a specific verb ('Stress'), a specific resource ('a loan'), and the exact scenarios tested (rate shocks, income decline, combined). It also names the output (stressed DSCR per scenario with pass/marginal/fail verdict). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling run_scenario, but the specialized scope is clear.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a loan needs credit-committee-style stress testing. It mentions the scenario types and outputs, giving an agent enough context to select it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative (e.g., run_scenario, calculate_metrics) would be more appropriate.

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