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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: answers are published FAQ text verbatim with source URLs, and language=es adds a Spanish courtesy translation beside the English.

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 and remains reasonably tight despite enumerating several topics. It is appropriately sized for an informational tool, though the long topic list could be slightly compressed.

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 read-only FAQ tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content (verbatim FAQ text with source URL) and translation behavior. It is largely complete, though it could better route agents away from sibling tools when appropriate.

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 both parameters are already well documented. The description repeats the topic categories and the Spanish translation behavior, adding little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it answers questions about CapCenter's loan programs, eligibility, refinancing, home equity, and licensing. It is clearly an informational FAQ tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_todays_rates or compare_refinance_options.

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 implied by the listed topics, so an agent can infer this is for general loan-program questions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators, quote tools, or rate tools.

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