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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns extra credit by disambiguating `amount` (borrowed, not owed) and routing the agent to the ledger account for balances — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It says nothing about pagination or result size.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose plus returned fields first, then the semantic clarification/routing hint. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured data.

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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and clarifies the one field most likely to be misread (`amount` vs balance owed). For a zero-parameter read tool this is complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There are no parameter semantics to convey and the description correctly spends no space on them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the business's loans') and enumerates exactly what each result contains (name, lender, interest rate, original amount, current vs archived). No sibling tool covers loans, so ambiguity is nil and an agent can select this immediately.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use-elsewhere rule: for the balance owed, read the loan's ledger account via evaluate_report rather than relying on this tool's `amount`. It stops short of stating general scope or exclusions (e.g. whether archived loans are always included), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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