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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the prerequisite registration/wallet linkage, the 'one open loan per bot' constraint, and the repayment source ('Repaid from Desk earnings'). It omits approval latency and loan amount, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, zero filler, with the audience/condition front-loaded before prerequisites, constraints, and repayment terms.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers who it is for, prerequisites, cardinality, and repayment. It leaves timing/latency and failure behavior unstated, a minor gap.

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 50% and the description only implicitly maps parameters ('bot' -> botId, 'linked wallet' -> pubkey) without adding format, source, or validation detail. With the schema already supplying patterns and the pubkey note, this is baseline-level value.

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?

States a specific verb ('request') and resource ('micro-loan that funds your bond') plus the outcome ('so you can claim jobs'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling status-check tool desk_loan_status.

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?

Names the target caller and condition ('For new bots with no SOL') and the prerequisite ('Needs a Trust-registered bot with a linked wallet (trust_link_wallet)'), routing the agent to the setup tool. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over e.g. desk_loan_status or how to proceed if a loan already exists, so not a full 5.

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