Estimate a RAP monthly payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the sliding 1%–10% scale, the $50 dependent deduction, the $10 minimum, and warns that assuming zero income returns the $10 floor and looks like a real answer. This is rich, honest behavioral context that prevents misuse.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second explains the underlying calculation logic and pitfalls, and the third gives the critical usage instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description provides all necessary input-handling guidance and behavioral warnings for a calculation tool. Since there is no output schema, it does not describe the return format or units, but for a simple monthly payment estimate the output is reasonably inferable, and the calculation method is fully specified.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description goes further by emphasizing that annualIncome must be actively requested and never defaulted, and by explaining the consequence of a zero value. This adds meaning beyond the schema's field-level 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 states a specific verb ('Calculates') and resource ('the monthly payment under RAP'), and clarifies exactly what RAP is, distinguishing it from older IDR rules. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling comparison tools, which focus on comparing plans rather than estimating a payment.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires the borrower's annual AGI') and instructs the agent to ask rather than assume, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling comparison tools, leaving that routing decision implicit.

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