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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the ranking rule (cheapest-suitable first), the exact result fields (institution, program, products, geography, broker path, submission channel, source URL), and the "not an offer; lenders decide" caveat. It omits result-count behavior and the default limit, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with the resource and ranking rule front-loaded, the return shape second, and the disclaimer last. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the sort order. The remaining gap is operational: nothing about the limit default or maximum, and nothing about how many lenders are typically returned.

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 75%, so much of the parameter meaning is already structured. The phrase "for the bands given" is the only added semantics, hinting that amount, credit, and tenure bands drive suitability ranking rather than simple filtering, but it never says which bands affect rank, what an omitted band defaults to, or how citizenship interacts with program eligibility.

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?

"Named lenders and programs for an industry, optionally filtered by state and product and ranked cheapest-suitable first" gives a concrete resource, its scope, and the ordering rule, so the agent knows this is a curated lender lookup rather than a calculator or a program-detail tool. It stops short of naming which sibling (estimate_match, lender_program, industry_overview) covers the adjacent job, so the separation is inferable rather than stated.

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 establishes the usage shape through "optionally filtered by state and product" and "for the bands given," telling the agent that only industry is mandatory and everything else narrows or ranks. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no pointer to estimate_match or next_best_option, and no statement of what happens when no state or band is supplied.

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