reverse_calc

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the calculation process but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. It safely implies no destructive actions but lacks deeper transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place, and key 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?

The tool has multiple parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and usage context well. Missing details about the output format (e.g., what the returned price looks like) are minor given the clarity, but could be improved for full completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how parameters relate (e.g., 'Back-solves from your desired cap rate...') and clarifying the purpose of the 'assumptions' nested object, enhancing semantic understanding 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 uses specific verbs 'Calculate' and 'Back-solves' to describe exactly what the tool does: compute maximum offer price for multifamily deals. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like analyze_deal and market_data by focusing on offer price determination.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided with 'Use this when someone asks...', giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar but different tasks.

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