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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the calculation order, the conditional NY CEMA behavior, and the critical failure mode where omitting prepaymentPenaltyPercent overstates borrower proceeds. It stops short of describing exact output shape or side effects, but for an analysis tool this is strong 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The waterfall concept and the critical prepayment-penalty warning each earn their place without redundancy.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a coherent mental model of the computation and the key required-input warning. It does not spell out optional-parameter defaults or full output field names, but the described waterfall is enough for correct selection and 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?

Schema coverage is only about 18%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping the loan-size constraints (LTV, DSCR, debt-yield) and by explaining the prepayment penalty semantics and the 'state 0 explicitly' rule. The remaining parameters like NOI, property value, and amortization years are not individually explained, but their meanings are clear from context.

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 names a specific, compound objective — a 'full cash-out refinance waterfall' — and enumerates its outputs from the largest supported loan through payoff, prepayment penalty, and closing costs to net cash. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like size_loan and estimate_closing_costs, even without naming them.

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 intended scenario (cash-out refinance analysis) is strongly implied by 'Full cash-out refinance waterfall,' and the NY CEMA qualifier adds a state-specific condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or exclusions, so the agent must infer the choice from the tool's name and content.

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