loan_get_simulation

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description explains that the unprovided amount is calculated, that LTV uses a ratio where 1.0=100% and lower is safer, and that APR is returned. It also groups symbols by role (crypto, loan, fiat), which is not in the 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, each sentence earning its place: purpose, input rule, return semantics, and usage context. There is no redundant filler.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, derived-value behavior, output semantics, and the recommended invocation point. It leaves minor gaps around exact numeric string formatting and behavior when both or neither amount is provided, and the 'Requires' wording is stronger than the schema's zero required params.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds the OR relationship between guarantee_amount and loan_amount and clarifies that one is derived from the other. This is meaningful beyond the per-field descriptions, though it doesn't add format or unit details for the amount strings.

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 specific verb and resource ('Simulate loan LTV and APR'), immediately distinguishing the tool as a pre-flight computation rather than a loan mutation. It names the key output concepts and closes with 'Use before loan_create', separating it from the loan lifecycle siblings.

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 an explicit usage cue ('Use before loan_create') and the core input constraint (provide either guarantee_amount or loan_amount). It does not spell out when not to use the tool or compare alternatives, but the downstream reference to loan_create is clear enough context.

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