calculate_scholarship_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it 'returns ranked net costs and best option,' implying a read-only calculation. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or disclose any side effects, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise with three sentences: purpose, use case, and input/output summary plus related tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low complexity, detailed schema, and existence of output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, inputs, outputs, and a related tool. It could mention the net cost calculation method (tuition minus scholarships) but is still sufficient.

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 adds 'list of {tuition, aid} pairs' which is somewhat misleading compared to the actual parameters. It provides general context but lacks detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 compares net tuition cost across multiple scholarships and aid packages for college choice. However, the input description 'list of {tuition, aid} pairs' slightly misrepresents the actual schema, which takes a single tuition and separate scholarship amounts.

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 mentions 'Use for college choice' and points to list_bundles for related calculators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other calculator siblings or provide exclusions.

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