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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Description claims inputs include 'term years,' but the schema requires 'monthly_payment' instead, creating a critical inconsistency. Outputs are mentioned but input/output logic is contradictory, severely impacting 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?

Description is short (2 sentences plus suggestion), but the misleading information about inputs makes it less effective. Could be improved by aligning with the actual schema.

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 large number of sibling calculators, the tool's specific scope is clear, but the input mismatch and lack of output schema details (despite existence of output schema) leave the description incomplete and inaccurate.

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 provides clear descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), but the description introduces confusion by referencing 'term years' which does not exist in the schema and contradicts the required 'monthly_payment' parameter. Description adds no value and undermines understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool computes a student loan repayment schedule and specifies outputs (monthly payment, total paid, total interest). It distinguishes from other loan calculators by focusing on student loans and planning for graduates.

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?

Description provides a typical use case ('Use for graduates planning repayment') and suggests related tools via list_bundles. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with similar loan tools.

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