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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, it discloses the counterparty-privacy policy, the lack of any lender-name field, the 'global-fallback' vs 'exact-jurisdiction' match kinds, and graceful degradation to an empty array on backend error. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that an agent needs to avoid hallucinating lender names.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds return-shape details, usage context, a critical prohibition, parameter summary, and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place, including the policy warning that prevents hallucinated lender names.

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 supplies the return contract: an ordered array with jurisdiction, matchKind, and rank. It also documents defaults, acceptable filter values, and backend-error degradation. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results safely.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameters. It explicitly documents jurisdiction (defaults to GLOBAL) and limit (1-100, default 10), adding a default that is absent from the schema and clarifying each parameter's role in filtering results.

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 states a specific purpose: determining whether droplinked can source financing for a merchant's jurisdiction and how matches rank. It clearly differentiates itself from lender-identity tools like verify_lender by explicitly stating it does NOT identify lenders, so an agent can discriminate between siblings.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'Use this when an agent needs to tell a merchant whether financing is reachable where they operate.' It also provides a clear when-not-to: do not tell the user which lender matched, because identity is withheld. It does not name an alternative tool for lender identity, so it stops short of a 5.

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