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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context — the principal is already escrowed in the contract, making acceptance instant — but says nothing about whether expired or historical offers appear, pagination, or what an offer contains.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope; the second sentence explains the follow-up action. The placeholder 'N verified sats' is unexplained, a minor ambiguity, but there is 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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the definition covers what offers are and how they are used. It is incomplete on return contents (terms, rates, principal) and on default behavior when token_id is absent, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 0% for the single optional token_id parameter, so the description must carry the semantics. It only alludes vaguely to filtering 'for one Pusaka' versus 'any Pusaka holding N sats' without naming the parameter, its format, or what happens when it is omitted (presumably all eligible offers).

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 — standing loan offers from lenders — and defines its two scopes: a single Pusaka or any Pusaka holding at least N verified sats. It also names the downstream action tool, pusaka_accept_loan_offer, so an agent can distinguish this read tool from the acceptance tool. The listing verb itself is implicit 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?

Usage is implied: browse offers here, then take them instantly with pusaka_accept_loan_offer or use them to refinance a funded loan. This gives a clear downstream context but never states when to choose this over a related tool such as pusaka_loan_watch, and offers no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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