calculate_loan_payment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns total interest, total payment, and optional amortization schedule, and notes the extra payment reduces tenure. However, it does not mention assumptions like monthly compounding, rounding behavior, or currency handling, which would help the agent assess side effects or precision.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus example queries. Key information (purpose, return values, supported loan types, example inputs) is front-loaded with no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns (total interest, total payment, optional schedule) and provides realistic examples. It could optionally mention that the output currency matches the principal input, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its return value and use it alongside sibling financial calculators.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and each parameter is described in the schema, the description adds valuable context: example queries show how parameters are used together, and it explicitly explains that extra_monthly_payment reduces tenure and that include_schedule returns a full amortization table. This goes beyond the schema's straightforward descriptions.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'monthly EMI / mortgage payment for a fixed-rate loan'. It lists specific loan types (home, car, personal, mortgage) and provides example queries that illustrate its scope, differentiating it from sibling tools like calculate_compound_interest or calculate_retirement.

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 implies usage by listing loan types and examples but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., for variable-rate loans or Islamic financing which has a sibling tool). No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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