check_renovation_roi

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it uses the HIGH (conservative) cost estimate, the exact ROI formula, and the 15% default threshold. It does not disclose the return shape (pass/fail boolean vs numeric ROI) or any edge-case behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the formula and default, then the argument list. Slightly duplicative in restating parameter names, but each sentence carries useful information.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with 4 parameters, the description covers inputs and computation logic well but never states what the tool returns (a boolean clearing the threshold, the ROI value, etc.), which an agent needs to interpret the result.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each of the four parameters is annotated with its meaning (high-end cost estimate, current rent, target rent, minimum ROI percentage), and the formula clarifies how they interact.

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 and resource ('check whether a renovation plan clears the minimum ROI threshold') and adds the formula and default threshold, so an agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling estimation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear it is a threshold check on a renovation plan, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus the many estimate_* siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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