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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: DFX plan gating, first-5-row returns with locked counts, contact fields never returned, coverage limitations (~2,150 borrowers / 880 firms), and the entitlement/locked response fields.

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 and long, but it is front-loaded with the core chain and return values, and the access and coverage details are relevant for a 10-parameter tool. A wall of text costs a point, though there is little obvious filler beyond the access pitch.

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?

Given a 10-parameter schema, 80% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fills the important gaps: return id formats, access tiers, withheld data, coverage caveats, and filter semantics. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret what it will and will not receive.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for group='sponsor' ranking behavior and demonstrates useful filter combinations like pik_since with group='sponsor'. It still does not explain every parameter beyond schema level, so it does not reach 5.

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 states a specific resource and relationship: the borrower-to-sponsor chain, with BDC portfolio metrics and identity bridging. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic company or credit searches, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer this over e.g. search_private_credit or get_sponsor_portfolio.

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 gives concrete usage examples: pass a borrower for sponsors, a sponsor for borrowers, or filters alone, and explains how pik_since with group='sponsor' and on_non_accrual_now answer specific questions. However, it never names alternative tools or explicitly states when not to use this search.

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