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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the six derivation steps, price source and merkle proof links, allowed term_days values, off-board 404 behavior, paid-quote fallback, and the informational-only disclaimer. This gives the agent a strong model of what will happen and what to expect.

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 dense but every clause earns its place, covering scope, output, parameters, error behavior, and disclaimers. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds supporting detail, though the long single sentence could be better structured for readability.

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 tool with an output schema present, this description is largely complete: it gives invocation context, parameter constraints, error handling, and caveats. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on selecting this tool over a specific sibling, but that is partially mitigated by the detailed scope statement.

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. It does clarify that term_days can be 7, 14, or 30, which is useful beyond the schema's bare integer type, and it implies product_id identifies a card on the free board. However, product_id semantics are left implicit, and the description does not explicitly connect parameters to the workflow.

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 states that this tool produces a free worked derivation of card-collateral lending terms, including the value chain from value to max LTV. It effectively distinguishes itself from generic price or proof tools by specifying its domain (loan terms on the free board) and output artifacts (merkle proof links), though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives clear context: use this for cards on today's published free board, and it explains that off-board cards return 404 with a pointer to a paid quote. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools for alternative use cases, but the conditionality is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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