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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds batch shape '{ results, errors }' and the array size limit, but does not cover error behavior or authentication needs. This adds moderate value beyond 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?

Three sentences: first lists fields, second gives usage guidance, third specifies parameter and return shape. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists many fields and mentions batch response shape, covering core functionality. Missing explicit structure of the response object (nested fields, types) but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with good annotations.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains loan_ids as an array of 1-50 items and notes the batch return shape, but does not clarify that items are loan ID strings or the format of each item. Provides some meaning beyond schema but not comprehensive.

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 returns full loan contract detail by ID (GET /loans/:loanId) and lists specific fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_loans (which likely provides summaries).

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 states 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. Also specifies the parameter format (array of 1-50 loan_ids) but does not mention when to avoid using it.

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