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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and compensates well: it discloses determinism, precision ('no estimates, no rounding shortcuts'), and the exact nature of outputs per deal type. It doesn't discuss side effects or error handling, but for a calculation tool, the disclosed traits provide solid transparency.

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 dense sentence that efficiently packs purpose, inputs, outputs, and quality guarantees. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers required and optional inputs, explains the output structure (verdict, metrics per deal type, summary), and gives a quality benchmark. It could mention why zip_code is required or how errors are surfaced, but the provided information forms a complete enough mental model.

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 description adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining arv_or_value varies by deal type (ARV for FF, refinance value for BRRRR, sellout for NC) and marking optional parameters. Since the schema has no parameter descriptions, this compensates significantly, though not every parameter (e.g., annual_debt_service) is explicitly explained.

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 a 'deterministic, lender-grade quick check' on real-estate deals, lists the deal types (FF, BRRRR, NC), and details the output (verdict, metrics, summary). This distinguishes it from siblings (methodology_faq, sample_report_fetch) which serve entirely different purposes.

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 context by contrasting with the 'full deal pack' and emphasizing 'quick check', implying it's for rapid assessment rather than full underwriting. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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