calculate_debt_to_income

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that the tool calculates a ratio and suggests prudent EMI, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as side effects, response format, or limitations (e.g., not considering living expenses). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotations.

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 short (two sentences) and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds use cases. There is no unnecessary information, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the use cases, but it is still concise.

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 is a simple two-parameter calculator, and an output schema exists. The description provides the purpose and usage but lacks detail on parameter semantics. Given the simplicity, the description is minimally adequate, but the lack of parameter explanation and behavioral transparency makes it incomplete compared to a fully documented tool.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description does not explain what 'monthly_income' (e.g., gross vs. net) or 'monthly_emi_total' (includes all existing EMIs?) means. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the agent could misinterpret them, and the description should have added clarity.

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 the debt-to-income ratio and suggests prudent additional EMI. It lists specific use cases like 'can I afford another loan' and 'loan eligibility', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_financial_ratios. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar ratio tools, so it gets a 4.

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 scenarios: 'Use for 'can I afford another loan', 'am I over-leveraged', loan eligibility.' This gives clear context on when to apply the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like loan_amortization for full amortization schedules, which prevents a perfect score.

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