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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing, and that the return shape is `{ results, errors }` per connection. This gives the agent insight into performance and error handling without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately covers parameter usage, behavior for multiple connections, and return format in a structured way. Every sentence 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It provides the endpoint, parameter semantics, behavior for both modes, and return format. Given the annotations and sibling context, there are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%) for the `items` parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It fully explains that `items` is an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), how it is used (one entry per connection), and the behavior when omitted. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool lists loan contracts per bank connection via the endpoint GET /loans. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_get_loan_detail by focusing on listing rather than individual details, and specifies the scope (per connection or all banks).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to pass `items` (to specify connections) and when to omit it (to list across all linked banks). It also explains that multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like openfinance_get_loan_detail, though the purpose and sibling context imply the distinction.

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