calculate_financing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Calcula' conveys a pure calculation with no mutation, which is useful, but the description does not mention rounding, precision, whether the result is an amortization schedule or aggregate values, or any edge-case behavior. Some context is given, but richer behavioral detail is missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by specifying the financing types and the key outputs.

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?

For a relatively simple calculator with five straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description names the relevant outputs and domain. It could be more complete by describing the return format or the relationship between property value and down payment, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 100%, with every parameter documented: months, amortization system, annual rate, down payment, and property value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 real estate financing (financiamento imobiliário), explicitly supports the SAC and Price systems, and lists the outputs: installments, total interest, and total amount paid. This differentiates it from generic sibling calculators like calculate_installment or calculate_debt_payoff.

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 domain and system options imply when the tool should be used, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not direct the agent toward or away from adjacent siblings such as calculate_installment or calculate_compound_interest. Usage context is present but only by implication.

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