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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the actual formula, the returned components, and the 25% deemed reduction when no appraisal arrives, though it does not discuss edge cases or exact output shape.

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 dense but front-loaded: it states the purpose, gives the formula, and lists the return components without filler. Every sentence contributes useful information for invoking the tool.

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 six-parameter calculator with no output schema, it supplies the needed formula, domain context, and high-level return values. It still lacks exact output field names, precision, and edge-case behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

All six parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description improves on that by mapping the inputs into the appraisal reduction formula, though its parenthetical phrasing around unpaid interest, advances, and other amounts due is not fully unambiguous.

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?

States a specific calculation and resource: the CMBS appraisal reduction amount for a delinquent loan using a new appraisal and a defined PSA formula. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are lookups, estimators, and loan sizing utilities.

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?

Provides clear context for use: a delinquent CMBS loan, a new appraisal, and a 2025 pooling and servicing agreement formula. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, 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.