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

With readOnly/idempotent annotations already covering safety, the description goes well beyond by detailing entitlement tiers: free access returns only 5 rows plus locked.count/locked.by_type, contact values and decision-maker names are never returned, and every answer reports withholding via `entitlement`/`locked`. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 opening sentence is a dense run-on enumerating eight metrics before stating the tool's purpose. The access block is justified but verbose; structure could front-load the core action and separate entitlement details.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields and access behavior thoroughly. The main gap is that the two undocumented 50% of parameters are not elaborated.

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 50%, so half the parameters lack descriptions. The description only reinforces the sponsor/lender id filters and hints at sortable metrics; min_borrowers, limit, and cursor get no added explanation, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 scope: sponsor x lender pairs with counted borrower/facility/principal metrics. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like get_sponsor_lenders or search_sponsor_capital_providers, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 says 'Filter by sponsor or lender id' but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated, so an agent must infer the scenario from sibling names.

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