calculate_debt_to_income

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool computes DTI ratio and returns DTI % and risk category, but does not disclose non-obvious behavior (e.g., handling of edge cases like debt exceeding income, rounding rules, or authentication). Since it's a simple calculation, the description is minimally adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The second sentence lists inputs and outputs in a clear but slightly verbose manner. It is efficient but could be more streamlined, hence a 4.

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 (2 params, output schema exists), the description adequately explains purpose, usage, and mentions a related bundle. It does not need to detail return values due to output schema. Some minor gaps in edge case handling prevent a perfect score.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the parameter meanings ('monthly debt, monthly gross income') but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema descriptions. No extra constraints or formatting details are provided.

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 computes DTI ratio, specifies use cases (mortgage qualification, financial health checks), and distinguishes it from many sibling calculator tools by giving a specific formula and referring to related calculators via list_bundles.

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 provides clear usage context (mortgage qualification, financial health checks) and directs users to list_bundles for related 'finance-universal' calculators. It could explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of siblings implies other calculators for different purposes.

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