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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the ordering (newest-first), the full set of returned fields, and statuses (ACTIVE/SUPERSEDED/REVOKED), which goes beyond what annotations reveal.

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?

Two sentences deliver all essential information: the first defines the action and output contents, the second explains usage context and relationships to sibling tools. No wasted verbiage, well front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates all output fields and statuses, making the return format clear. It also covers usage context and alternatives, which is more than adequate for a simple read-only tool with one parameter.

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?

The input schema has a single lenderId parameter with a clear regex pattern, making it fairly self-documenting. The description doesn't explicitly explain lenderId, but the parameter name and schema pattern are sufficient for an agent to infer its meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description could have added a brief mention, but the minimal risk makes this acceptable.

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 states the tool returns all methodology document versions for a lender, newest-first, and lists the included fields. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing verify_methodology and get_methodology_timeline for different lookup purposes.

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?

Explicitly states that verifiers use this tool to trace a lender's full methodology lineage, and provides direct guidance on when to use alternatives (verify_methodology for hash-specific lookups, get_methodology_timeline for per-hash lifecycle events). This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance needed.

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