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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context. It does clarify that this is a calculation using the DIME method rather than a data-mutating operation, but it does not describe output format, assumptions, or limitations such as it being an estimate only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the tool's purpose and immediately explains the acronym. It is tight, scannable, and contains no filler.

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 described method covers all major parameter groups and the schema fully documents inputs, making the tool invocable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still misses information about the expected result format and underlying calculation assumptions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters fully. The description adds some value by mapping DIME categories (Debt, Income, Mortgage, Education) to the parameters, but it does not introduce new semantic detail beyond that.

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?

States a clear verb ('Calculate'), a specific resource ('life insurance needs'), and a named method (DIME) with its components expanded. This cleanly distinguishes the tool from the many other calculate_* finance siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The only usage signal is the tool's name and the DIME method reference, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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