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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains that principal held is a lower bound, that a BDC tagging no maturity contributes nothing, and that results are ordered by date. It also discloses the default window. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and default window, then lists output fields and filters. Every sentence earns its place: no filler, no repetition of schema details, and the key behavioral caveats (lower bound, no-maturity exclusion) are included without bloating the text.

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 read-only search tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is searched, what is returned, the default window, and the filters. It does not describe pagination behavior or the exact format of the cursor, but those are standard and the schema covers cursor. The main gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the relationship to debt_maturity_schedule, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does: it explains the window concept (months, from), the filters (sponsor, lien, minimum principal), and the meaning of the output fields. It does not explicitly explain cursor or limit, but those are pagination parameters whose semantics are standard and partially covered by the schema (cursor has a description). The description adds real 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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('debt facilities on a BDC schedule whose maturity falls inside a window'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like debt_maturity_schedule by focusing on facilities still on a BDC schedule with tagged or written maturity. It also names the default window and the output fields, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 implies when to use it: when you need facilities maturing inside a window, with filters by sponsor, lien, and minimum principal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list includes debt_maturity_schedule and get_borrower_facilities, and the description's specificity about 'still on a BDC schedule' and 'tagged or written maturity' gives enough context to select it. A clear when-not-to-use statement would push this to 5.

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