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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: answers are grounded in the knowledge base, short, and include citations. It also implicitly communicates that the tool is not exact by routing loan math to exact tools. Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive safety profile, so the description does not need to repeat that.

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 purpose and follows with a specific routing directive, avoiding repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 single-parameter read-only Q&A tool, the description covers the tool's purpose, input semantics, output nature (short, cited, grounded), and when to choose a sibling. No output schema is present, but the description adequately explains return characteristics, so the definition is complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the single parameter as a plain-English question about commercial real estate lending, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare string type and length constraints. For one parameter, this is sufficient, though it lacks examples or explicit topic boundaries.

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 identifies the tool as a Q&A tool for commercial real estate lending, stating a specific verb, resource, and output (short answer grounded in Relendi's knowledge base with citations). It also distinguishes itself from exact calculation siblings by explicitly naming size_loan and run_scenario.

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 explicitly says when not to use the tool: for loan math, prefer size_loan or run_scenario, which are exact. The 'Ask a plain-English question' phrasing establishes the intended use case, and the exclusion draws a clear boundary with the computational siblings.

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