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.