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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable context: it explicitly notes the tool never authorizes a wire, accepts only fictional data, and returns a signed receipt. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies constraints, earning a strong score.

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-loaded with the primary action and then details about options and constraints. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it evaluates, the optional flag, the return categories, and the safety constraints (no real data, no wire authorization). It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and scope.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains the purpose of both parameters: 'one published fictional mortgage closing scenario' corresponds to scenario_id, and 'Optionally add live public FDIC institution context' maps to include_live_fdic_context. It does not enumerate the scenario_id values, but those are self-explanatory in the enum, and the description compensates for the lack of schema coverage.

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 evaluates a fictional mortgage closing scenario for destination changes and cash-to-close evidence sufficiency, and it specifies the return values (MATCH, CHANGE_REVIEW, INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool aux_transaction_preflight, but the specific mortgage closing context gives it clarity.

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 outlines what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tool aux_transaction_preflight. It does mention 'never authorizes a wire or accepts real customer or bank data', which is a constraint but not a usage recommendation. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided.

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