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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it provides a 'full CFO-level assessment' and mentions a close guarantee, but these are more marketing statements than behavioral disclosures. It does not describe output format or side effects, so with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 first two sentences are efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose and use case. However, the third sentence about USDV Capital's marketing promise is promotional and irrelevant for tool selection, adding noise. The description could be more concise.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'CFO-level assessment' contains and whether the tool sends email reports. It does not, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. The description is adequate but lacks key behavioral details.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings, though it implies property types relevant for propertyType. It adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline holds.

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 calculates DSCR for rental properties and Airbnb short-term rentals, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling calculators like calc-rental_cashflow or calc-str_revenue by focusing on the DSCR metric, making the 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 explains that DSCR is used for rental loans qualifying on property cash flow rather than personal income, and explicitly mentions applicability to long-term rentals, Airbnb/VRBO, and BRRRR refinance. This provides clear context, though it does not name alternate tools or exclusions, resulting in a slight deduction.

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