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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it does not execute the screen, and the figures are a historical observation from the CFPB HMDA 2025 record with stated filters, not a prediction.

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 ANSWER/PARAM structure, which is highly scannable. The trailing data-source, disclaimer, and attribution sentences are dense but arguably necessary compliance content 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?

No output schema, but the description states what is returned (coverage and price) and its provenance, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of response shape or whether all-or-nothing coverage reporting applies.

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 100%, so both parameters (lei_list range 1-40, license_key balance behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description restates 'a list of public LEIs' and adds little syntax or meaning beyond the structured field.

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 (quote cost/coverage for screening a list of LEIs) and explicitly scopes it as not running the screen, which cleanly separates it from the screen_counterparties sibling. The 'ANSWERS' framing maps directly to the user questions it resolves.

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?

Explicitly says it is used before screen_counterparties so cost and coverage are known in advance, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. That is a complete when-to-use statement.

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