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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-waivable 10% down, the 5% standby cap, the unlimited personal guarantee requirement, the no-earn-out constraint, and critically that prime has no default because it moves. It does not cover failure modes or rate-limit/response behavior, but for a pricing tool the constraint disclosure is strong.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose leads, then constraints, then the prime caveat, then the sibling differentiation. Every clause carries information; the phrasing is heavy but appropriate for the financial complexity, with no 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 9-parameter, no-output-schema, annotation-free financial tool, the description explains what is computed, what inputs are required, and the eligibility constraints. It stops short of explaining default-driven behaviors (e.g., the unpriced-owner flag) or result shape, but the core is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains why 'prime' must be passed today (no default, it moves), clarifies the standby cap semantics, and ties the 10% down / standby relationship to the pricing logic beyond the raw field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Price the SBA 7(a) route for buying a business') and enumerates the exact outputs: least allowed buyer cash, the loan it unlocks, and the 1.25x DSCR test. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling build_stack ('prices the no-bank route on the same figures').

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?

Names the alternative (build_stack) and its scope, and says 'neither is ranked above the other', so the agent knows the two are parallel routes rather than one being preferred. It also lists eligibility prerequisites (personal guarantee, seller leaving, no earn-out). What's missing is an explicit 'choose this when the buyer wants a bank loan' routing rule.

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