Calculate max affordable home price

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No network — pure local math' and reference to a canonical shared engine. This reassures the agent that invocation has no side effects or external dependencies. No contradiction with 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?

The description is three tight sentences: purpose, inputs, outputs, then behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description needs to be self-sufficient. It covers outputs and most inputs, but it does not state units for interest_rate or property_tax_rate, nor does it mention the DTI override parameters. An agent could still make incorrect assumptions about exact call format.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-meaning burden. It names most parameters in plain language, adds examples like 'car/student loans' for monthly_debts, and flags optionality for tax/insurance/HOA/loan term. However, it omits the custom front_end_dti/back_end_dti override parameters and does not specify rate units, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 action and resource: 'Solve for the maximum home price you can afford.' It further specifies the standard 28/36 DTI rule and enumerates inputs and outputs, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like redfin_calculate_mortgage.

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 intended use case is clear: computing a maximum affordable home price under a standard DTI rule. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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