Calculate Dti

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the mortgage-assessment framing but does not disclose the calculation formula or behavior beyond naming the ratio. This is adequate given the strong annotation coverage.

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 one concise, well-formed sentence that states the action, the subject, and the domain. Every word earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple, two-parameter calculation with a full input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the DTI formula, but an agent can reasonably infer it from the parameter names and the term 'ratio.'

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 ('Calculate') with a concrete resource ('Debt-to-Income (DTI) ratio') and adds the application context 'for mortgage risk assessment.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_ltv (loan-to-value) and evaluate_credit_risk (broader risk evaluation).

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 phrase 'for mortgage risk assessment' implies a relevant use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as assess_income_stability or evaluate_credit_risk. The context is clear enough to infer basic usage, but alternatives are not discussed.

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