loan_amortization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output is a schedule and notes the trend, but omits assumptions like monthly compounding, payment frequency, or output schema details. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it for behavioral clarity.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and readable.

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 complexity of financial calculations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks assumptions about payment frequency, compounding period, and edge cases. The output schema exists, which reduces the need for return-value explanation, but core behavioral assumptions are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. However, it does not explain units (e.g., annual_rate as decimal or percentage), valid ranges, or that tenure_years should be a positive integer. The description provides no additional parameter guidance.

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 it generates a loan amortization schedule showing month-wise principal/interest split, with the trend of decreasing interest and increasing principal. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_emi (which only gives EMI) and compare_loans.

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 generating a full schedule, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't clarify that this tool is for a fixed-rate loan or that tenure must be in years.

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