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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by detailing the composite structure, the edge case around lenderCurrentStatus vs. attestation status, and graceful clean-slate behavior on errors or unknown merchants. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral disclosure.

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 description is dense and front-loaded with the output composition. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence conveys a necessary nuance (output breakdown, efficiency, usage scenario, edge case, error behavior). Slightly verbose but well-structured.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description provides the key decision input (anchorTier), a critical status nuance, and error behavior. However, it relies on domain knowledge of 'Schema B' and 'Schema C' without explaining their contents, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the underlying structures.

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?

Only one parameter (merchantId) exists with schema coverage at 0%, but the schema fully defines the constraints (pattern, length) and the parameter is self-evident from the name. The description does not explain merchantId directly but mentions behavior for unknown merchants, adding marginal value over the schema.

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 a composite merchant-wide underwriting envelope, enumerating specific components (Schema B, Schema C, CreditTier upgrade preview, summary block). It distinguishes itself from sibling verifier tools by noting it consolidates 3-4 per-axis calls into one.

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 when to use: 'Use this when a lender-agent needs to resolve should I underwrite this merchant + at what tier in one round trip.' It also implies the alternative (multiple verifier calls) but does not name specific sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria.

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