calculate_loan_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the computation type and output unit but omits details on assumptions (e.g., compounding frequency), rounding, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., zero interest).

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core function and output unit. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter format hints without losing brevity.

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 absence of annotations and a need to compensate, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema existing), does not clarify the formula (e.g., how interest is compounded), and lacks validation context. An agent could misinterpret the rate format or output structure.

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 description must compensate. It implies parameters (principal, rate, term) and clarifies principal unit (10k KRW) but does not explain that annual_rate_pct is expected as a percentage (e.g., 5 for 5%) vs decimal, or that years is an integer. The value added beyond the schema is minimal.

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 an equal principal+interest monthly payment (EMI) and specifies the output unit (10k KRW). It distinctly differs from sibling tools like calculate_compound_growth or calculate_monthly_cashflow.

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, prerequisites, or limitations. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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