Calculate max affordable home price

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing 'No network — pure local math' (no auth/network dependency) and naming the exact return shape (max price, binding constraint, PITI breakdown), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then input/output inventory. Dense but every sentence carries information; the cohort note (@chrischall/realty-core) is arguably the weakest line but still signals consistency expectations.

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 10 params, no output schema, and only partial schema descriptions, the description does the necessary work: it names the return fields and the DTI mechanism. An agent could invoke this correctly without further context, though the sibling boundary remains slightly under-specified.

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 60% and the description compensates well, enumerating the key inputs (monthly income, recurring debts, down payment, interest rate) and flagging the optional group (property-tax rate, insurance, HOA, loan term). It also ties the 28/36 rule to the front_end_dti/back_end_dti params, adding meaning beyond the raw 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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Solve for the maximum home price you can afford under the standard 28/36 DTI rule.' This clearly distinguishes it from the plain mortgage-payment sibling, though it never names onehome_calculate_mortgage explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the affordability framing and the confidence-scoping note ('standard 28/36 DTI rule'), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (onehome_calculate_mortgage) for payment-only questions. The reader must infer the split.

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