amortization_calc

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the output is a 'full amortization schedule' but does not describe any side effects, constraints, or assumptions (e.g., rounding, error handling). The description is insufficient for a read-only calculation tool.

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 brief and uses a clear parameter listing. However, the structure could be improved by using a more standard format (e.g., markdown) or integrating example values inline.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks contextual hints about typical use cases or differentiation from similar tools like mortgage_calculator or auto_loan_calc.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the schema, which has no param descriptions. It clarifies that 'rate' is an annual interest rate with an example, and 'term_months' is in months. This helps the agent understand expected formats, though it could be more precise about principal currency.

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 full amortization schedules with monthly breakdowns, making the purpose easy to understand. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like loan_calculator or mortgage_calculator, missing a chance to differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for loan calculations, the lack of usage context hinders agent decision-making.

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