Assess Income Stability

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond restating the purpose, but given the annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by naming the action, target, and input source.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully described schema, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior. It lacks only optional guidance about interpretation or use cases, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the parameter description lists valid employment statuses. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('income stability risk') and clarifies the input basis ('borrower employment statuses'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_asset_sufficiency or calculate_dti, which address different risk dimensions.

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 the tool is for assessing income stability when employment statuses are available, but it does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or when to prefer an alternative sibling tool. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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