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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: nothing is priced, stored, or sent; the reviewer-mode carve-out for example.com/example.org/example.net/.test/.invalid addresses (answered in full with a download link but no email and no lead recorded); LLC/corporation closing rules; and the mandatory full street address. That is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 first sentence is properly front-loaded with the core purpose, but the rest collapses into a long semicolon-chained block mixing scope, entity rules, address rules, and reviewer mode. Each fact earns its place, yet the packaging makes the conditional reviewer-mode detail easy to skim past.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: scope, required fields, entity constraints, address requirement, and read-only/reviewer-mode behavior are all present. The one material omission is not naming the sibling tool that consumes these requirements, which is what an agent would do next.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema has nothing to document. The field-requirements detail in the description pertains to the downstream request tool's inputs rather than to this tool's own (empty) schema, so it neither adds nor detracts here.

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 clearly frames the tool as a read-only reference for what a fix-and-flip term sheet request requires, with an explicit verbless-but-specific statement of subject (fields, required values, scope, deliverable). It is distinguishable from the sibling request tool by being the 'requirements' side rather than the submission, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

'before you make one' implies this is the pre-request reference step, which is useful but indirect. It never names request_fix_and_flip_term_sheet as the alternative to call when you actually want to submit, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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