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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that the tool returns bundled reference material, does not fetch live data, and does not change accounts. It also discloses coverage limitations for home-country credit import, which is valuable given the openWorldHint=false annotation and the partial coverage caveat.

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 well structured and front-loaded with the core usage statement, followed by concrete path details and caveats. It is a little long, but each sentence contributes useful information: scope, path content, parameter guidance, coverage limitations, and side-effect disclosure.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description covers what an agent needs to know: target audience, expected content, parameter influence, coverage limitations, and the fact that no live data or account changes are involved. Nothing important appears missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each parameter in context: homeCountry determines whether the credit-import route is open, and monthsInCanada focuses the answer on the relevant phase. This is more useful than the raw schema alone.

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 audience and task: building credit as an immigrant, newcomer, international student, or temporary resident in Canada. It then enumerates the concrete components of the returned path, such as steps before a SIN arrives, home-country history import, and first tradeline, making the tool's scope clear and distinct from the sibling tools.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use this for any question about building credit as an immigrant, newcomer, international student, or temporary resident in Canada.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the audience and purpose are specific enough that an agent can identify the intended context without confusion.

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