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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires explicit user confirmation, creates a persistent lead record, does not collect sensitive personal data, and explains the post-submission workflow. No contradictions with annotations.

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 four sentences and front-loads the main action. It is mostly efficient, though the final sentence ('Creates a persistent lead record') partially overlaps with the first sentence ('Records a loan enquiry'). It earns its place by adding persistence and database context, so overall it is concise without being minimal.

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 complexity (multiple product types, nested applicationData variants) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context. It explains the workflow, user confirmation, and privacy stance. It does not detail return values, but the output schema covers that. The description could be slightly more explicit about when to prefer this over get_multiple_offers, but it remains fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all parameters and nested properties. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it clarifies the overall purpose and mentions that sensitive data is not collected, which indirectly helps interpret the applicationData content. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 records a loan enquiry and submits it to one selected lender on the user's behalf. It uses a specific verb with a resource (SecureLend's system, one lender) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_multiple_offers by emphasizing 'one selected lender' and the post-submission flow.

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: after explicit user confirmation, for submitting to a single selected lender. It implies alternatives through the phrase 'one selected lender' (contrasting with get_multiple_offers) and notes the user will later apply on the lender's platform. However, it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives.

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