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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the full public record, and implies a single record for id versus a collection for institution. It says nothing about response shape, empty results, or what 'public' excludes.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then the two access paths. Slightly awkward as a noun phrase rather than a clause, but every element earns its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned and the multiplicity difference between the two modes. It is largely complete, though it could say more about the record's contents or how to handle an unknown institution.

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%, and both parameters are documented there, including the 'if no id' fallback already stated in the institution field. The description adds only the provenance detail that ids come from find_lenders, which is marginally beyond the schema but not substantial. Baseline 3 for a fully described schema.

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 names a specific resource (a lender program's full public record) and both retrieval modes: by program id, or all programs of one institution. It clearly distinguishes itself from find_lenders, which it positions as the source of ids. It stops short of a crisp verb, reading more as a noun phrase, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It tells the agent the two entry conditions: an id obtained from find_lenders, or an institution name when no id is available. That implicitly routes discovery work to find_lenders. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or how it differs from lender_stats, but the usage context is clear.

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