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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: read-only, free, paper zeni with no real money held or moved, and the board being disabled until enabled. 'Names are outside text' flags that listing names are untrusted external data, a useful safety note. It stops short of saying what an actual call returns when the board is off (empty list vs error) or whether results are paged.

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?

Three short sentences with the content inventory front-loaded and constraints after; no filler. Minor cost: the telegraphic fragment 'Names are outside text' is not immediately parseable without domain context.

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 zero-arg, no-output-schema read tool the description covers what is displayed, that it is free and read-only, that the currency is fictional, and that it may be switched off — enough to decide whether to call it. Only the shape of the returned record (ordering, pagination, disabled-state behavior) is left unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100%, so no compensating explanation is needed.

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?

Names a specific resource (the paper loan board) and enumerates exactly what it contains: open offers with lender name, amount, flat fee, days, credit band, collateral, plus repaid/defaulted counts. The clause 'Read only, free' separates it from the mutating loan siblings (loan_offer, loan_take, loan_repay, loan_cancel) without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the browse step before loan_take, but no sibling is named and no explicit 'when to use this instead of X' guidance is given. The one genuine usage constraint it does supply is 'Off until the team switches it on', which warns that a call may be gated by a feature toggle.

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