Get Loan Schedule

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the output structure (each row includes number, date, capital repaid, interest, insurance, total, remaining principal) and noting period totals. No contradictions. While not exhaustive, it provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function and optional filter; the second details the output fields. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description provides a complete list of fields returned and mentions period totals. However, it omits information on error handling, pagination, or how to interpret the results. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is mostly sufficient but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so descriptions must compensate. The description mentions the optional year filter, adding meaning to the year parameter. However, loan_id is not explained beyond its name, so only partial compensation. The description does not cover the required parameter adequately.

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 returns the complete amortization table of a loan with optional year filter. It explicitly lists the fields in each row, making the purpose very specific. The verb 'Retourne' plus the resource 'tableau d'amortissement' is clear and distinct from sibling tools like compute_loan_schedule.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include compute_loan_schedule and list_loans, but no explicit distinction is made. The agent is left to infer that this retrieves an existing schedule.

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