loan_get_simulation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is a simulation and includes '[PUBLIC]', implying it is a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or detail authorization requirements.

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 plus a concise explanation of outputs. It is front-loaded with the purpose, 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (amounts, LTV ratio, APR) and provides usage context ('Use before loan_create'). It is complete for a simulation tool with straightforward inputs and outputs.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds critical context: the mutual exclusivity of guarantee_amount and loan_amount ('Provide guarantee_amount OR loan_amount (other is calculated)') and explains the LTV ratio meaning, going 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 the tool simulates loan LTV and APR. It specifies the verb 'Simulate' and the resources 'loan LTV and APR'. It distinguishes from siblings like loan_create and loan_get_config by indicating it is a preparatory step.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use before loan_create.', provides required parameters, and explains the mutual exclusivity of guarantee_amount and loan_amount. This guides when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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