Debt Payoff Plan

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it simulates and returns computed metrics (months to debt-free, total interest, date, per-debt payoff). No contradictions, and it provides sufficient behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with clear structure: first sentence states purpose and strategy options, second sentence clarifies inputs and outputs. No redundant 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?

For a simulation tool with 3 parameters, the description covers all inputs (debts, monthly_budget, strategy) and outputs (months, interest, date, per-debt payoff). No output schema exists but return values are described. Missing error handling but acceptable.

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 67%, but the description clarifies that debts are user-provided and explains each strategy's meaning (avalanche=highest APR, snowball=smallest balance). It adds value by explaining the strategy enum beyond the enum values.

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 simulates a debt-payoff plan with given debts and monthly budget, specifying strategies and that debts are user-provided. It distinctly separates from sibling tools which focus on different finance functions.

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 explicitly states when to use (simulate payoff plans) and that debts are provided by the user (not read from CSV), indicating it's for manual scenario testing. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.

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