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

With annotations already marking this as read-only and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond structured fields. It discloses data provenance ('what the household or their statement said'), the lack of reconciliation with connected accounts, and the limitation that Truo does not compute what is owed today.

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 purpose, then adds output details, provenance, and limitations in short, purposeful sentences. Every sentence adds useful context without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description need not repeat return-value details, but it still helpfully summarizes what is returned and clarifies important limitations. It is complete for a no-parameter, read-only summary tool with an output 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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 names a specific resource (loans the household told Truo about) and immediately states what each record contains: latest statement balance, rate, repayment frequency, and review address. It also distinguishes this from connected-account data by noting Truo does not match these loans against connected accounts.

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 gives clear context for when this data applies: it covers loans self-reported by the household via statements, not connected accounts. It even warns to count a loan once if it is also connected. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or state when-not-to-use beyond avoiding double counting.

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