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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds materially: public LEIs only and never borrower/credit/PII, free preview vs licence-gated full brief, and the hard constraint that an agent may relay the offer but can never complete a purchase. It also discloses the data vintage and method (CFPB HMDA 2025, actions 1-3, loan_type 2), the 'signals not findings' caveat, and attribution.

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?

Front-loaded with the ANSWERS/PARAM structure so an agent gets triggers and input shape first, then constraints. It is dense and reads as one long run-on block, but virtually every clause carries load-bearing behavioral or licensing information rather than 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the return payload (per-entity observed vs expected rates, coverage flags, method version, evidence-manifest hash) and covers licensing, PII limits, and epistemic caveats. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so each of the three parameters is already documented, including the 1-40 LEI cap and the explicit instruction to pass license_key only when the user provided it. The description's 'PARAM: a list of public LEIs' restates rather than extends that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (screen a batch of counterparty LEIs against the public HMDA record) and names the exact output (observed vs expected FHA denial rates, coverage flags, method version, manifest hash). An agent can separate it from siblings like get_lender_denial_stats or screen_counterparties_quote without opening any 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?

The 'ANSWERS:' clause gives concrete invocation triggers ('screen these LEIs', 'which counterparties deny more than predicted'), which is clear usage context. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g. screen_counterparties_quote for pricing) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the top band.

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