wafeq_amortizations_preview_create

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explicitly explaining that this is a POST endpoint but a simulation, that it returns events that WOULD be generated, and that it 'writes nothing to the ledger.' This removes ambiguity around POST semantics.

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 key purpose and read-only nature. The emoji header slightly overlaps with the following sentences, but the additional note about the POST being a simulation adds useful non-obvious context.

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 preview/simulation tool, the description adequately conveys the behavior and return concept. It could be more complete by describing the response payload shape or clarifying the unusual top-level filter parameters, but the core call intent and safety profile are well 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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters beyond referring to 'the given schedule.' The nested body schema documents amount, dates, duration, and recognition_type, but the bare top-level filter parameters are left unexplained, and the description adds almost no parameter-level guidance.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Preview amortization schedule' and 'previewing the amortization events that would be generated.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from an actual amortization creation by stating it does so 'without creating an amortization.'

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a preview or simulation of the amortization schedule is needed and no ledger write should happen. It implies the alternative is the real creation endpoint ('without creating an amortization'), though it does not explicitly name the sibling create tool.

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