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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the computation logic — that the maximum loan is the smallest of the LTV, DSCR and debt-yield tests and which test binds — which is meaningful behavioral context for interpreting results. It doesn't cover error behavior or unit handling, keeping it at 4.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the rest is a single run-on sentence that strings inputs, outputs, override logic and preset provenance together without punctuation breaks. It is dense but readable; splitting the return-value clause out would help scanning.

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?

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description's enumeration of return values (NOI, max loan, binding test, debt service, loan per bed) fills the gap the missing output schema leaves. Preset override semantics are implied through the schema rather than stated in the description, a minor shortfall.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the bump by naming the input families (beds, rent per bed, months collected, vacancy, expenses, reserves, value, own interest rate) and flagging the debt yield as optional and the rate as 'your own,' i.e. an override rather than a preset value.

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 verb and resource ('by-the-bed loan sizer') and enumerates both the input drivers and the outputs (NOI, max loan, binding test, annual debt service, loan per bed). Siblings (get_campus, search_campuses) are unrelated lookups, so no differentiation burden exists, but the scope statement is precise regardless.

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?

It implies usage context by calling itself a loan sizer and by explaining that presets are 'Freddie Mac's published student housing LTV/DSCR tiers,' and it notes min_debt_yield is optional. It never states when to use this vs. an alternative, nor any precondition such as needing a property value or a quoted rate before sizing.

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