summarize_debt_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool merges three data sources and ranks/projects, which is useful. But it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error conditions, or what happens when no Plaid data is linked; a summary tool implies no mutation but leaves that implicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the main action is front-loaded and the data-scope sentence earns its place. This is appropriately concise.

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 tool with three meaningful parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, expected output shape, and failure modes such as a missing Plaid connection. It works as a high-level summary but not as a complete call specification.

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% and the description names none of the three parameters (today, strategy, extra_monthly_payment). The only indirect hint is 'project payoff timelines,' which does not explain the strategy default, how extra_monthly_payment changes results, or the role of today. This is a major gap.

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 opens with a clear verb+object ('Rank every debt') and explains it projects payoff timelines, which distinguishes it from raw retrieval siblings like get_liabilities_tool and list_external_debts_tool. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when a consolidated, ranked debt picture with payoff projections is needed, and the 'Plaid-only' note plus mention of overrides/external debts clarifies scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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