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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the auth requirement ('Authorization: Bearer ... via the two-header model'), specifies that the MCP layer does not decide routing, clarifies idempotency behavior, and outlines the return value (resolved tier, selected partner for Tier-1). This goes well beyond the minimal hints in annotations.

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 four sentences, each adding value: purpose, routing behavior, return value, and auth/idempotency. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how routing works, return value, and auth. It falls short of full completeness by not explaining the 'two-header model' or potential error/failure scenarios, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain both parameters. It indirectly suggests agentBearer is the JWT via the auth mention, but it never explicitly maps agentBearer to the header or explains the 'two-header model'. applicationId is only implied by the overall purpose. This is insufficient compensation 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 action ('Trigger a Tier-1 / Tier-2 / Tier-3 lending application submission') and identifies the specific backend service (TierRoutingService). It distinguishes this tool from read-only siblings like get_lending_application_status by focusing on submission, and the tier/routing details add specificity.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to submit a lending application) and includes important usage constraints (backend decides routing, idempotent re-submit on SUBMITTED state, required auth). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for status checking or other actions, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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