emi_calc

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

The description clarifies the input parameters (e.g., annual interest rate example) but does not mention output format, rounding, or precision. Since annotations are absent, the description bears full responsibility, but it provides only basic parameter details without deeper behavioral context.

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 a clear opening sentence and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary words. The parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema but adds brief clarification.

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 the presence of a full input schema and output schema (though not shown), the description sufficiently explains the calculation purpose. However, it omits details about the output and fails to differentiate usage from similar siblings, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for the 'rate' parameter by providing an example format ('e.g. 8.5 for 8.5%'), but for 'principal' and 'tenure_months', it merely restates schema titles. This marginal addition keeps it at a baseline of 3.

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 Equated Monthly Installments for loans, which is a specific verb+resource. Among siblings like 'loan_calculator' and 'mortgage_calculator', it uniquely focuses on EMI, so it is well-distinguished.

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 alternative finance calculators like 'loan_calculator' or 'compound_interest'. The description lacks context for selection and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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