calculate_mortgage

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it states the tool is read-only, stateless, idempotent, has rate limits (free/pro tiers), requires no authentication for basic usage, and outlines error handling and data privacy. This is thorough and leaves no ambiguity.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Behavior, Transparency). It is somewhat lengthy but every section adds value. The key information is front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose. Minor redundancy in the 'Behavioral Transparency' subsection could be trimmed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not specify the structure of the returned analysis. It mentions 'full breakdown' but omits fields like monthly payment, interest, taxes, insurance. This is a significant gap for a tool that produces structured output, leaving the agent to guess what the tool actually returns.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. The 'Args' section gives brief descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'principal: Property purchase price'). While helpful, it does not explain the calculation formula or how defaults affect output. More detail on parameter relationships would improve clarity.

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 the tool calculates monthly mortgage payments with a full breakdown. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'mortgage payment' are specific. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on neighborhood analysis, valuation, comparables, and listing generation.

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 description includes 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, but the guidance is generic ('structured analysis or classification') and does not explicitly compare to sibling tools. It provides some context but lacks concrete scenarios for when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.

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