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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the useful caveat that it returns governed match states rather than eligibility or approval, but it does not explain what those match states mean or other operational behavior.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first gives the usage trigger, the second gives the key output caveat. There is no wasted framing or repetition.

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 tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and very low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter guidance and does not help an agent understand how to supply term, amount, borrower type, or the many enums, even though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 only 9% for 11 parameters, so the description should compensate heavily but does not. It only hints at country and broad stated requirements, leaving term, amount, purpose, product_type, borrower_type, and nested object semantics entirely to the schema enums and types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: finding borrowing products that may fit stated requirements in a supported country. It also distinguishes the output from eligibility or approval, which helps separate it from check_product_requirements, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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 gives a clear usage trigger — when a user asks which borrowing products may fit requirements in a supported country. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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