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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds useful context about the four scoring pillars, compensability cap diagnostics, program alignment, and counterfactual action steps, but does not disclose assumptions, limitations, or the exact return structure.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the score, scale, pillars, and advanced outputs. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 complex 17-parameter scoring engine with no output schema, the description gives a good high-level summary of what is produced. However, it lacks usage routing against sibling tools and does not clarify the exact shape or limits of the returned diagnostics, leaving some practical gaps.

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 100%, so the input schema already defines each of the 17 parameters in detail. The description adds high-level domain framing by naming the four pillars, but it does not map specific inputs to pillars or add meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: computing UQUAL's 4-Pillar Loan Readiness Score on a 0-100 scale across four named pillars. It is clearly distinct from single-metric siblings like calculate_mortgage_dti or calculate_mortgage_affordability, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those 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 explains what is computed but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling calculators or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative instructions beyond the tool name itself.

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