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

The description discloses graceful degradation to found=false on missing lender/backend error and notes the stable response shape. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, providing actionable behavioral detail without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a use-case and behavior note. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description covers the return shape, error behavior, and practical usage context. Combined with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the tool without gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the parameter lenderId is simple. The description adds meaning by explaining that lenderId is used to resolve the profile and is also part of the return shape, plus implies it can be missing. It doesn't elaborate on format beyond the schema's pattern, but the context is sufficient.

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 'Resolve the public profile for a lender by lenderId' with a specific verb, resource, and identifier. It lists the exact return fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lender_history and verify_credit_risk.

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 says 'Use this to round-trip a Schema B credit-risk attestation's lenderId field...' giving a precise scenario and cross-check purpose. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the targeted use case is clear enough.

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