finance.loan_schedule

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the final installment absorbs the residual balance, EQUAL_PRINCIPAL returns null monthly_payment, and rounding/decimals defaults. These are exactly the quirks an agent needs and are not derivable from the schema.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded, then method, rate convention, bounds, rounding, and output quirk in descending order of importance. Nearly every clause carries information; only the trailing 'unsupported' sentence could be trimmed further.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it still flags the one non-obvious output behavior (null monthly_payment under EQUAL_PRINCIPAL). Combined with rate convention, bounds, rounding defaults, and unsupported features, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 carry the load, and it largely does: it defines method's two enum values with their meanings, specifies annual_rate is a decimal fraction (0.03) with monthly = annual/12, bounds months to 1–1200, and gives defaults for decimals and rounding. The only gap is 'principal', whose string/decimal format is never explained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('대출 상환 스케줄을 계산한다' — compute a loan amortization schedule), which is unambiguous and distinct from anything else in the finance.* family. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings (pv/fv/irr), but no sibling competes for the same job, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear applicability boundaries by stating '거치기간과 중도상환은 지원하지 않는다' (no grace period, no early repayment) and by naming the two supported repayment methods with their Korean labels. It does not give an explicit when-to-use/when-not vs an alternative, but there is no meaningful alternative in the toolset.

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