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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'borrower snapshot table' and 'offset-based pagination,' but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what data is returned, whether it includes all protocols by default, or if there are any rate limits or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 three sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose ('Generic discovery surface'). The second sentence efficiently lists differentiators from the sibling tool, and the third gives a concrete use case. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context about return values and behavior. It covers the tool's purpose and main features, but it does not mention what fields are returned, whether the snapshot is current or historical, or how protocols are handled by default. For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, this is acceptable but leaves notable gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes key parameter groups (HF bounds, max-debt cap, sort field/direction, pagination) but does not add meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It is neither redundant nor compensatory; it simply restates the parameter categories.

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 clearly identifies the tool as listing borrowers, calling it a 'generic discovery surface' over the borrower snapshot table. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers` by mentioning the additional filter bounds, sort options, and pagination, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to walk the catalogue without knowing borrower addresses in advance,' which provides a clear use case. It also contrasts with the at-risk variant by noting the extra capabilities, implying when the generic version is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name other alternatives like `seneschal_get_borrower`, but the intended context is evident.

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