Calculate max affordable home price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe reads. The description adds 'No network — pure local math,' which confirms no side effects and local computation. It also describes outputs (max home price, binding constraint, PITI breakdown). This adds value beyond 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 a single paragraph of ~80 words, efficiently summarizing purpose, inputs, and outputs. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 explains the output in detail (max home price, binding constraint, PITI breakdown). It covers all important aspects: inputs, outputs, and behavioral trait (local math). For a simple computation tool with annotations, this is complete and sufficient.

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 has 60% coverage, and the description lists primary inputs (income, debts, down payment, interest rate, optional tax/insurance/HOA/term). It adds context like 'recurring debts (car loans, student loans, etc.)' and mentions outputs. However, it does not significantly elaborate on parameter meaning or defaults beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 solves for maximum affordable home price under the 28/36 DTI rule. It uses specific verbs ('Solve for the maximum home price') and specifies resource ('affordability'). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_mortgage by focusing on affordability rather than monthly payment.

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 description lists required inputs and expected outputs, making it clear when to use it (when needing affordability calculation). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct. Could be improved by contrasting with zillow_calculate_mortgage.

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