Money You're Owed Catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it does not collect personal data or make payments, a privacy guarantee not conveyed by the annotations. Return format remains lightly described but the key behavioral constraints are present.

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 core action and followed by scope and safety caveats. The long parenthetical domain list is informative rather than wasteful, though it slightly lengthens an otherwise tight definition.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the deliverable (source-cited facts plus a linked educational resource) and the read-only constraint. It could say slightly more about the shape of the returned answer, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the single 'question' parameter is fully documented with a plain-language example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb-and-resource pair ('Look up verified, source-cited facts ... for a US consumer money-recovery question') and enumerates the covered domains. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what subject matter it handles. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is required.

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 parenthetical domain list effectively delimits when the tool applies (deposits, refunds, drug-coverage denials, unclaimed property, fintech accounts), giving clear context for selection. It does not state explicit exclusions or what to do when a question falls outside those domains, which keeps it 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.