loan_amortization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('dict: Schedule rows and totals including payment amount, interest, principal breakdown') and parameter format (e.g., annual_rate is fractional). However, it omits assumptions like payment timing or rounding, which are small gaps for a calculation tool.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence summary, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every sentence contributes valuable information without wasted words.

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 is moderately complex, and the description explains the return value at a high level but not the exact structure of the schedule rows. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the core input/output semantics are adequately covered.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: principal amount, annual rate as fractional, term in years, and payment frequency default. This adds critical meaning beyond raw schema property names.

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's function: 'Generate a loan amortization schedule for given principal, rate and term.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling financial tools like dcf_analysis or break_even_analysis.

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 when a loan amortization schedule is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing alternatives.

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