venture_debt__payment_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the payment structure but omits critical details such as output format (e.g., table of payments), assumptions (e.g., monthly compounding), and handling of edge cases.

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 very concise, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior. It is front-loaded with the category but does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.

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 the tool (4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return value, constraints, or how to interpret the schedule.

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 0% and the description fails to explain any parameter meaning. Terms like 'io_months' and 'amort_months' are implied but not defined, leaving the agent without necessary context for invocation.

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 produces a monthly payment schedule with an interest-only period followed by level amortization. This distinguishes it from other debt-related tools, though the verb is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aro_computation__accretion_schedule or lease_accounting__amortization_schedule. The description lacks any contextual selection criteria.

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