Calculate Ltv

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) and contains no contradiction. It does not add behavioral details beyond what the annotations already declare, such as side-effect-free operation or output characteristics. For a simple calculation this is acceptable, but the description contributes little extra behavioral transparency.

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 or redundant wording. It conveys the action, the specific ratio, and the context efficiently, earning a top score for structure.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent calculation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the domain and the metric, and the output schema covers return details. It lacks an explicit formula and usage guidance against siblings, but these are minor for a standard financial calculation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including units ('in dollars'), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description does not add parameter-level detail or explicitly state the ratio formula (loan_amount / property_value). This meets the baseline but does not improve on the schema.

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') and identifies a precise resource: the Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio, with the domain context 'for mortgage risk assessment'. This clearly conveys the operation without being a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like calculate_dti, leaving the distinction to the well-known meaning of LTV.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as calculate_dti or evaluate_credit_risk. The phrase 'for mortgage risk assessment' gives a broad context but does not state selection criteria, exclusions, or prioritize one sibling over another. An agent must infer usage from the tool's name and standard financial knowledge.

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