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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the quote is free and indicative, and coupon/participation is rounded to 0.5%. However, it does not clarify side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is strictly read-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?

The description is a single compact sentence fragment that front-loads the quote type and then lists the returned computations. It is efficient and has no wasted words, though its terseness leaves some contextual gaps.

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 description gives a reasonable summary of outputs for a tool without an output schema, and the termSheet schema covers the only input. Still, for a structured-product pricing preview, it omits important context such as assumptions, limitations, or when to prefer this over price_note.

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 100%, and the single termSheet parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema with a nested example. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 that this is a free indicative quote and lists the specific outputs: fair coupon/participation rounded to 0.5%, probabilities, and payoff diagram. This is more specific than restating the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling price_note.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use preview_note versus market_snapshot or price_note. The word 'Free' hints at a preview or indicative use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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