calculate-loan-payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the calculation method (French amortization) and output structure, but lacks details on error handling, precision, or limitations (e.g., rate/term bounds). It doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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 front-loaded with key information in a single bilingual sentence, with no redundant or verbose elements. Every part (calculation method, output) earns its place efficiently.

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 calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and method. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or example usage, which would enhance completeness given the tool's functional complexity.

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 100%, providing clear parameter details. The description adds context by specifying the amortization system and output values, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or calculation nuances beyond what the schema implies.

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 specific action ('calculate monthly loan payment'), the method ('French amortization system'), and the output ('returns payment, total amount, and interest'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare-loans' or 'search-loans' by focusing on calculation rather than comparison or search.

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 implies usage for loan payment calculation with fixed amortization, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare-loans' or 'get-loan-requirements'. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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