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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing exactly what is deleted ('Supprime les échéances existantes') and what is recalculated (capital, interest, insurance). It also discloses the return value (financial summary, first and last installment) and currency (EUR), providing rich behavioral context without contradicting 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 three concise sentences, each providing distinct and necessary information: what the tool does, what it destroys/recalculates, and what it returns. No unnecessary words or repetition, and the key destructive behavior is front-loaded.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the main operation, the destructive effect, the components recalculated, and the nature of the response. It lacks explicit alternative tool guidance, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema is minimal with a single required integer loan_id. The description does not mention this parameter or add any additional meaning beyond the schema. However, given that the parameter is highly self-explanatory from the tool name and schema, the schema is sufficient. The description adds no value here, but the low parameter count and clear name keep it adequate.

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's purpose: it generates or regenerates the amortization schedule for a real estate loan. The verb 'génère' is specific, and the resource 'tableau d'amortissement' is well-defined. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_loan_schedule' by emphasizing recalculation and deletion of existing installments.

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 usage for generating or regenerating a loan schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_loan_schedule'. No clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, only an implied context for recalculating payments.

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