camelot_mortgage_amortization

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

The annotations already signal idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds a useful behavioral trait: 'Local browser processing.' This tells the agent that computation happens locally, which is context beyond what the annotations or schema provide. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loads the core action and outputs in the first sentence. The 'Local browser processing' note adds value, and the canonical URL is slightly extra but not bloated; minor punctuation issues are negligible.

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 simple three-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The local-processing note covers the main behavioral aspect, and return values are already described by the output schema.

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%, with each parameter (termYears, loanAmount, interestRate) already clearly documented including defaults. The description does not need to add param semantics and does not, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the exact resource and outputs: monthly mortgage payments, amortization schedules, and principal breakdown. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like camelot_debt_payoff_calculator or camelot_tax_estimator.

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 implied by the domain ('Mortgage Amortization' and calculate mortgage payments), so an agent can infer when it applies. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over related financial calculators, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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