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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the computation formula and output unit ('percent'), but does not disclose additional behaviors such as handling of zero property value or output precision. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the metric name, and includes the essential formula without any unnecessary words or fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity, the description sufficiently explains the calculation and output format. The presence of an output schema and annotations covers return details and safety. A minor gap is the absence of input constraints (e.g., positive values), but not critical for this simple calculator.

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 provides basic property descriptions ('Loan amount', 'Property value'), but the description's formula 'loan / property value' clarifies the relationship and intended role of each parameter, adding meaningful context 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 defines the tool's purpose: to compute the loan-to-value ratio as a percentage, with the explicit formula 'loan / property value'. This goes beyond the mere title 'Loan-to-Value' and distinguishes it from sibling financial metrics.

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?

Usage is implied by the metric name and description, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. For example, it doesn't contrast with similar ratios like DTI or DSCR. The description relies on the user knowing when to apply LTV.

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