Money You're Owed Catalog

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false. The description adds that it does not collect personal data, make payments, or change anything, reinforcing and extending the transparency beyond annotations without contradiction. Some nuance about rate limits or data sources is missing, but the core behavior is well-disclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Look up') and then lists key constraints. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 a single parameter, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail: it clarifies the tool's scope, its read-only nature, and the type of output (facts and educational resource). It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the question should be in plain language and gives an example ('my landlord kept my security deposit'). This helps the agent understand the expected input format better than the schema alone.

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 looks up verified facts and linked educational resources for consumer money-recovery questions, with specific examples (security deposits, refunds, claims). It distinguishes itself as read-only, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies the tool is for consumer money-recovery questions and lists example domains. It states it is a read-only lookup, implying it should be used for information queries, not actions. No sibling tools exist, so no alternative guidance needed, but it could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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