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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers a lot: free tier, 404 behavior for non-qualifying slabs, the paid alternative and its price, a frozen USD level, and an informational-only disclaimer. It omits auth/rate-limit details, but the failure mode and cost profile are unusually 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 content is dense but front-loaded — the derivation chain appears first via arrows, then defaults, then pricing/availability caveats. Given the domain complexity the length is justified, though the parenthetical pricing and date clauses stack up and slightly impede scanning.

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?

An output schema already covers return values, so the description is free to spend its words on the derivation pipeline, eligibility, and commercial context — which it does. For a tool with branching availability and a paid fallback, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: grade is exemplified ("PSA 10") with the omitted-default semantics, and term_days enumerates the allowed values 7/14/30 (the schema has no enum). product_id is left unexplained, a modest gap in an otherwise compensating description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — a worked derivation of graded-slab lending terms — and even enumerates the six computation steps, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It names the paid-quote fallback rather than a sibling tool, but among siblings like get_price and get_market_snapshot the lending-terms scope is still identifiable.

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?

It states the availability condition clearly: only free-board slabs (top 250 by census depth) return the derivation, others 404 with a pointer to the paid quote. It also notes raw-card quotes are no longer issued. The routing logic is explicit, though it doesn't contrast this tool against any of the twelve sibling tools.

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