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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: results may change over time, may include third-party offers when enabled, and user completes application on the lender's platform. These explain the tool's dynamic nature and hand-off flow, which are not captured by annotations alone.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by brief behavioral notes. No unnecessary words, and every sentence contributes to agent understanding.

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?

The description covers the search action, expected outputs (rates, terms, eligibility), dynamic results, third-party source possibility, and the application flow. With the output schema and annotations already present, this is a complete picture for a compare tool. Missing minor details like required parameters are already in 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 schema provides full coverage (100%) for all 7 parameters, including descriptions and constraints. The description only mentions 'matching the user's criteria,' which adds no specific parameter-level meaning. Since schema already documents parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches SecureLend's lender database for commercial mortgage offers (purchase or refinance), with a specific verb ('search'), resource ('lender database'), and scope ('commercial mortgage'). It distinguishes from siblings like compare_personal_mortgages and compare_business_loans by mentioning the commercial mortgage focus and the lender database.

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 context is explicit: this tool is for commercial mortgage offers, purchase or refinance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools (e.g., compare_personal_mortgages). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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