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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful provenance detail that results come from servicer filings, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or coverage gaps in those filings. It adds some value beyond the annotations without being rich about behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first names the resource, source and filter axes, the second gives the use case. The filter dimensions are front-loaded where an agent scanning tool lists will see them.

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 an eight-parameter read-only screener with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, data source, filter axes and intended analysis, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against other loan-search tools, which matters for selection but not 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 88%, so the schema already explains most parameters, including the city/cities distinction, sortBy intent, propertyType codes and the YYYY-MM-DD maturity formats. The description restates the filter set and implicitly frames maturityFrom/maturityTo as a window, but adds no syntax or interpretation beyond what the schema carries.

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 ('Screen') plus resource ('CMBS loans from servicer filings') and enumerates the four screening dimensions (maturity window, collateral state/city, property type, minimum balance), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest loan siblings (find_recorded_loans, search_sba_loans), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Use for maturity walls and refinancing risk' supplies a concrete analytical context that tells the agent when this screener is the right call. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives such as find_recorded_loans or search_sba_loans, so the routing decision is still partly inferred.

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