compare_loan_scenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (both schedules plus delta metrics), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is a pure computation with no side effects, validation rules, or failure modes. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Purpose and use cases are front-loaded, which is good, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections largely restate the schema and output schema. The Args units are valuable, yet the Returns block duplicates what the output schema already declares.

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 8 required params, an output schema, and no annotations, the definition supplies units for every input and describes both the use cases and the return structure. An agent could call this correctly; only side-effect/permission context is missing.

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?

With schema coverage at 0% and 8 parameters, the schema provides only bare titles. The description compensates by documenting each parameter and, importantly, its unit (dollars, annual percentage, years) and the human-readable role of the labels, adding real meaning over 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?

States a specific verb+resource (compare two loan scenarios side by side) and specifies the output shape (schedules plus delta metrics). This clearly distinguishes it from single-scenario siblings like calculate_monthly_payment, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'Typical uses' line gives concrete conditions: 15-year vs. 30-year, two rates on the same principal, different loan amounts. Clear context for when to reach for this tool, but no exclusions or explicit routing away from the single-scenario calculators.

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