compare_loans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what the tool returns (output schema exists but not described), whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The lack of output description limits 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 very concise with two sentences and an example. Every sentence adds value: purpose, input format, and a concrete example. No fluff.

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?

Given the output schema exists but is not described, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., best deal, comparison table). It also does not cover edge cases. For a comparison tool, understanding output is important, so completeness is moderate.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the expected JSON structure with fields (principal, annual_rate, tenure_years, name) and provides an example. However, it does not elaborate on constraints or validation rules.

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 compares multiple loan options to find the best deal, specifying input format and fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_emi' and 'loan_amortization' which handle single loans or other analyses.

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 implies usage for comparing multiple loans but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'calculate_emi' or 'invest_or_prepay_loan'. No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions are provided.

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