sg_affordability

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is paid ('PAID — auto-pay if wallet configured') and outlines the regulatory framework used. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, caching, or rate limits.

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 two sentences and a parenthetical. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the output description ('Returns max affordable loan and property price') into a clearer format.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate but not complete context. It explains the calculation framework but does not describe the output format, error scenarios, or edge cases (e.g., invalid loan_type, age limits). A more complete description would help an agent use this tool effectively.

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 context about the TDSR and MSR ratios, which relate to the 'loan_type' parameter. However, it does not explain individual parameters beyond the schema, such as the meaning of 'housing_loan_count' or 'existing_monthly_debt' in the context of the calculation.

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 Singapore property loan affordability under MAS TDSR/MSR framework, specifying the key ratios (TDSR 55%, MSR 30% for HDB), LTV limits, and stress-tested interest rates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other property aspects like stamp duty, rental yield, or HDB resale prices.

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 implies the tool is for calculating affordability but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent select it among siblings like sg_property_analyze or sg_cpf_housing.

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