calculate_emi

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it produces a 'year-by-year amortization schedule', which informs the agent about the output structure beyond what annotations cover. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Calculate EMI for a loan with year-by-year amortization schedule') followed by usage guidance. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters fully described in the schema, an output schema available (as per context signals), and annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description completes the picture by clarifying the scope (year-by-year schedule) and use cases, making it comprehensive for an AI agent.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add new semantic details beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool calculates EMI with a year-by-year amortization schedule, specifying the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'EMI for a loan'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_gst or validate_pan by focusing on loan EMI computation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when computing loan EMIs, comparing loan options, or planning prepayment strategies.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives.

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