fixed-income_amortization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns specific outputs like monthly payment and schedule, which is consistent and non-contradictory. No additional behavioral traits needed.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the title-like phrase. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, input, output. No fluff.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a simple calculation tool, the description sufficiently covers what it does (schedule with extra payments), inputs (principal, rate, term, extra payment), and outputs (payment, interest, schedule). No gaps.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by mentioning 'extra payment savings analysis' and listing return fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose beyond the schema.

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 it produces a 'full amortization schedule with extra payment savings analysis' and explicitly says to use it when generating a loan amortization schedule. It differentiates from siblings by specifying amortization, a distinct niche among financial tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when generating a loan amortization schedule.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear for this specialized tool.

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