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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description still adds substantial behavior: the ~45-60 day data lag, that `description` is a compiled profile not filing text, the above-par trap (a mark above 100 is not a credit premium until fairValue is checked against cost), and that aggregates cover only CURRENT holders while `holders` is per-tranche.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dataset, then return shape, then traps and constraints. It is dense and slightly crammed with capitalized flags, but nearly every clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (borrowerName, borrowerNorm, description, descriptionSource, industry, the four aggregates, holders) and explaining the tranche-row semantics. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by clarifying that query needs 3+ characters and that limit/offset page only the `holders` tranche rows, not the aggregates -- a scoping nuance the schema alone does not stress.

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 and resource: which BDCs lend to a single private-credit borrower, fuzzy name match. It also pins the underlying dataset (Oxford Ledge parse of SEC EDGAR BDC schedules, not filer-published data), which distinguishes it from generic company-search siblings.

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?

Gives one important usage caveat -- a miss means {found: false} and is not evidence of no BDC exposure -- but never names alternatives or when to prefer them (e.g., ol_borrower_profile, ol_bdc_common_borrowers, get_bdc_list). Usage is implied by the phrasing rather than spelled out.

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