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.