Doors Funded: 1-4 unit investor lender terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds one piece of value over the annotations by disclosing that the response includes a link to the full head-to-head page — helpful given there is no output schema — but says nothing about ordering of a/b or behavior when both slugs are identical.

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 compact sentence with no waste, front-loading what the tool returns. It is slightly fragment-like rather than a full statement of action, but nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 two-enum-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers the essentials and even hints at the return payload. It stops short of stating output shape beyond the link, ordering semantics, or the duplicate-lender edge case, leaving minor gaps an agent could stumble on.

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% and both parameters are constrained enums of lender slugs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that the two inputs are 'investor lenders', with no clarification of whether argument order matters or what happens on a duplicate pair; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (two lenders' published terms) and the operation (side-by-side comparison), which is specific enough to separate it from get_lender_terms, which returns a single lender. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternatives: get_lender_terms for a single lender, or match_deal / dscr_check for other tasks. An agent must infer the comparison use case entirely from the tool name and the phrase 'side by side'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the three results produced (ratio, max loan, required rent) and warns that the rate is caller-supplied rather than an offered rate, which prevents a real misuse. It stops short of describing output shape or rounding.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core definition front-loaded and no filler. Minor ambiguity in the trailing 'and the rent needed', which does not say what rent is needed for (presumably to hit the target DSCR), costing a point.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does list the three computed values. What is missing is only the shape of the response and how target/ltv defaults flow into the sizing outputs, which is a modest gap for an 8-parameter read-only calculator.

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 schema already documents every parameter including defaults for hoa, ltv and target. The description's formula ('monthly rent divided by principal, interest, taxes, insurance and HOA') adds conceptual meaning by showing how taxes/insurance/hoa combine into the denominator, but it does not explain ltv or target semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — computes the debt service coverage ratio on a rental — and goes further by naming the two derived outputs (largest supported loan at 1.05x and the rent needed). The sibling tools (compare_lenders, get_lender_terms, match_deal) are clearly different functions, so there is no routing ambiguity.

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: this is a per-property underwriting calculation for a rental. The one explicit guidance sentence ('The rate is whatever you pass; it is not an offered rate') clarifies input provenance rather than when to use the tool. No when-not conditions or alternatives are named, and no prerequisites (e.g. it's a single-property calc, not a comparison) are stated.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit by disclosing what comes back: raw sourced text, normalized numbers, source URLs, and the read date — provenance details an agent needs before trusting the values.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single readable sentence, which is good. However, the 13-item slug list duplicates the schema enum exactly and consumes roughly a third of the description without adding information an agent can use.

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 output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does: structured text, numbers, source URLs, and read dates. For a one-parameter lookup gated by a closed enum, nothing essential about invocation or response content is 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% and the enum enumerates every valid slug, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description's trailing slug list merely restates the enum verbatim, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource precisely (one investor lender's published DSCR, fix-and-flip, construction and portfolio terms) and states the return shape (sourced text plus parsed numbers, with source URLs and read date). The singular 'one lender's' implicitly distinguishes it from compare_lenders, but no sibling is actually named to sharpen the boundary.

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 singular scope suggests fetching a single lender where compare_lenders would cover several, and dscr_check/match_deal are never referenced. No explicit when-to-use or when-not statement is given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the response shape (lenders grouped by fit, failing limit or term to ask about, Doors Funded handoff link), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about how current the lender limits are, whether data is cached, or any rate/usage constraints.

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?

Front-loads the check and its scope, then the return shape. The parenthetical list of 13 lender names is long but arguably informative for knowing coverage; otherwise there is no filler.

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 12 parameters all documented in the schema and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description's main remaining job is explaining what comes back, which it does (grouped-by-fit results with failure reasons plus a handoff link). Freshness/authority of the lender limits is the one omission.

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%, with per-field descriptions and an enum for prod, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond restating domain scope, which is the expected baseline when the schema is this complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a ... deal against the published limits of 13 investor lenders') and bounds the domain tightly (1-4 units, business-purpose, LLC/corporation borrower). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like compare_lenders or get_lender_terms, but the unique 'match deal to lenders' framing is hard to confuse with those.

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?

Gives clear eligibility context for when the tool applies: 1-4 unit, business-purpose, entity borrower, with the lender universe enumerated. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions explicitly (5+ units is only excluded via the schema), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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