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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds two behavioral specifics: it filters for 'active' agreements and includes the 'impact on current period P&L'. These are useful, but the description does not disclose edge cases (e.g., behavior when no active agreements exist, or whether the P&L impact is a calculated figure). Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description's added value is moderate, warranting a 3.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and lists the key outputs (agreements, repayment schedule, P&L impact). Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise and well-structured for a simple read-only tool.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (which will define the return fields), the description only needs to convey the high-level content, which it does: it specifies the three main components (active agreements, repayment schedule, and current-period P&L impact). For a no-argument read-only tool, this is fully sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the response shape via the schema.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none, and it correctly omits any parameter-related discussion. No additional semantic value is required or possible here.

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's purpose: it retrieves active revenue-based funding (MCA) agreements, repayment schedule, and their impact on the current period P&L. This is a specific verb-resource pairing (get + MCA status) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bank_balance or get_pnl_summary, which address different financial aspects. The term 'MCA' is defined, removing ambiguity.

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 context for when to use the tool—whenever an agent needs MCA agreement details, repayment schedules, or their effect on P&L. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the specificity of the resource (MCA) makes the usage context unambiguous. A small exclusion note would have made it perfect, but it is not necessary for this straightforward read.

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