refuse_div7a

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior—this tool refuses Division 7A calculations—and explains why, which is meaningful context beyond the tool name. It does not specify the exact error/refusal output, but an output schema is present so return shape is covered elsewhere.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operative behavior ('Refuse Division 7A calculations') followed by the rationale. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values are already documented, and the core behavior is clear. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent to infer invocation context and parameter roles; it is adequate but not complete.

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% and the description does not mention borrower_name, lender_entity_name, loan_principal, start_fy, or is_secured_25_year. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'Refuse[s] Division 7A calculations' and gives a concrete reason, 'No reviewed engine is wired.' This is not a tautology of the tool name and clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling calculators/benchmark tools.

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 line 'No reviewed engine is wired' implies the tool is a safe refusal path rather than a real calculation engine, but the description never explicitly states when to call it (e.g., when a Division 7A calculation is requested) or when not to, and it names no alternative.

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