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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds substantive payload context (a loan can be closed by a roll or cash-out; it carries a standing roll instruction), but says nothing about behavior such as lookup failure when loanId does not exist or data freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then the returned facets; no filler. The stacked parentheticals make the tail clauses harder to parse than they need to be, which costs it the top score.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: state, amounts, deadlines, currently permitted actions, roll instruction, and closure reason. Missing only edge behavior (unknown loanId, whether closed loans remain readable), which is minor for a single-entity read.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain what a loanId identifies, that it is the required key, or that engine defaults to the current core — that detail lives only in the engine schema description, so the undocumented half is not compensated for.

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 'One loan:' and enumerates what is returned (state, amounts, deadlines, available actions, standing roll instruction, closure cause), so an agent can tell this is a single-loan read rather than a portfolio or an action tool. It never states an explicit verb like 'retrieve', which keeps it a notch below the clearest definitions.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical '(here, or on gage.cash for an action this server does not serve)' signals that mutating actions belong elsewhere, which is useful routing. But there is no explicit statement of when to call gage_loan versus gage_portfolio or a gage_prepare_* tool.

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