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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it returns three specific URL outputs, background checks may start automatically, a secured loan requires a complete guarantee, and the tool does not itself approve the loan. This gives the agent essential side-effect and approval-boundary context that annotations alone do not provide, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and outputs, then moves to requirements, side effects, and approval boundaries. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with an open-world hint, nine parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well: it explains return values, automatic background checks, required fields, conditional guarantee requirements, and the human-review boundary. It still omits auth/permission expectations and more parameter semantics, so it is not fully 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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful conditional meaning ('a secured loan also needs a complete guarantee') and lists required fields, but it leaves many parameters (pricing, purpose, tenorMonths, amortisation, guarantee types/who/asset/limited/program) unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new underwriting package for a borrower.' It also states the concrete outputs (deskUrl, dashboardUrl, exportUrl), which makes the tool's effect unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like read_package or open_case.

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?

It provides clear preconditions ('Requires borrower, amount, currency, and security; a secured loan also needs a complete guarantee') and boundary conditions ('Does not approve the loan. Human review remains required'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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