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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the sort order (by issuedAttestationCount and lastAttestationAt), the computed recommendation score, and graceful degradation to an empty array on backend errors. This is useful transparency for an agent deciding whether to rely on the result.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: return format, usage scenario, and parameter details. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, all parameters with defaults, return sorting, and error behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: jurisdiction defaults to GLOBAL, archetype enum values are listed, limit range is given (1-100, default 10), and the meaning of each filter is implied. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's function: 'Get an ordered list of recommended lenders for a merchant based on jurisdiction and archetype.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('lenders') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_lender or get_lender_history.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when an agent needs to suggest lenders to a merchant based on geographic + regulatory constraints' with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the contextual guidance is clear enough for a 4.

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