calculate_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (backend JSON payload or error structure) and the calculation method example, but does not discuss side effects or permissions. Since this is a calculation tool, the lack of further disclosure is acceptable but not thorough.

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 succinct, uses a clear Args/Returns structure, and every sentence adds value without 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 covers all parameters and gives a general return expectation. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return fields. Minor gaps remain around the calculation_method options, but the schema provides a default.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for parameters, yet the description fully explains each parameter with units and formats (e.g., annual interest rate in percent, tenure in months, calculation method example), exceeding the schema's information.

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 retrieves an amortization schedule for a loan configuration, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_with_prepayment, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by clearly stating its function, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as calculate_emi or calculate_with_prepayment.

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