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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the batch return shape ({ results, errors }) and the array limit (1-50), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loading the purpose, then listing key fields, then providing usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return shape (fields and batch format), usage flow (after list loans), and parameter constraints. For a single-parameter read tool, this is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by specifying that loan_ids is an array of strings with a batch size limit of 1-50. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, though it does not describe each item in 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 it returns full loan contract detail by ID, lists specific fields returned, and distinguishes from sibling openfinance_list_loans by indicating it is for deep-diving on a specific contract. The verb 'get' and resource 'loan detail' are precise.

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 explicitly advises to use after openfinance_list_loans for deep-diving, providing clear context. While it does not list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tool name implies the list-before-detail pattern, making usage guidance adequate.

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