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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it delivers: it states that the tool returns data before anything runs, discloses the source (CFPB HMDA 2025 record, actions 1,2,3; loan_type 2), and explicitly notes it is 'Not a prediction about any individual application.' This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's limitations and side-effect-free nature.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage rule, followed by data source and attribution. Each sentence contributes useful context, though the all-caps 'ANSWERS' and 'PARAM' styling and the attribution line are slightly non-essential to tool invocation. Overall it is compact and well-organized.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to call, return value (coverage and price), data provenance, and a disclaimer. It lacks an explicit output format, but there is no output schema and the described return value is simple. For a quote tool with two parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'PARAM: a list of public LEIs' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's '1-40 public LEIs to be quoted.' It does not explain the relationship between the parameters or add usage nuance beyond what is already structured.

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 answers the tool's purpose clearly: it quotes the cost and LEI coverage for a screening list. It explicitly states 'Returns coverage and price before anything runs' and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool screen_counterparties by saying 'Always call before screen_counterparties on a new list.'

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 gives an explicit usage rule: 'Always call before screen_counterparties on a new list.' This directly instructs the agent on when to use this tool versus the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about sequencing or condition.

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