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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating it is read-only, returns results without changing state or accessing customer data, and does not provide personalized financial advice. This adds valuable context for safe usage, complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds important behavioral constraints in a structured manner. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the calculator's purpose, supported strategies, input sources, and behavioral boundaries (no state change, no data access, no advice), making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description mentions 'avalanche or snowball' and 'extra monthly payment', but these are already captured in the strategy enum and extraPayment field. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 runs debt payoff projections using avalanche or snowball strategy and extra monthly payment, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators by focusing on debt payoff strategies, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this is a debt payoff calculator, implying it is the right tool for projecting debt payoff scenarios. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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