calculate_islamic_financing

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

Description explains the three instruments and their mechanics but does not explicitly state that this is a non-destructive calculator with no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full transparency burden but is not fully explicit.

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 three sentences plus examples, tightly packed with information. Uses clear structure with numbered instruments and example queries. No unnecessary words—every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of 12 parameters and three instruments, the description covers the purpose and usage well. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (no output schema), so the agent must infer output format from examples. Slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained definition.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by grouping parameters per instrument and providing realistic examples that illustrate usage, e.g., 'markup as % of asset cost' and profit split ratio. This reinforces understanding beyond schema alone.

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 it calculates Islamic financing arrangements, lists three specific instruments (murabaha, ijarah, mudarabah) with brief explanations, and provides example queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_loan_payment or calculate_compound_interest.

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?

Examples show when to use each instrument (e.g., 'murabaha financing for $100k house...'), providing practical guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with conventional loan tools, so not a perfect 5.

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