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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses B2B nature, RESPA compliance, flat-fee pricing, and no kickbacks, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, data retention, or permissions required, so transparency is incomplete.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, compliance, and output order. It is front-loaded and no filler, though slightly dense.

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 description lacks detail on output format (e.g., just program names or full details) and does not specify input constraints (e.g., valid state values, income limits). With no output schema and many parameters, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain individual parameters beyond mentioning 'buyer's 8 fields'. It fails to add meaning to fields like creditScore range, householdIncome constraints, or propertyType implications.

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 purpose: given buyer's fields, it returns loan programs the buyer likely passes, sequenced in apply-order. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for loan program qualification (as opposed to visa match or charity care check).

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 indicates when to use (given buyer's fields) and mentions the tool is RESPA-safe and flat-fee, implying appropriate contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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