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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the batch shape `{ results, errors }` and the 1-50 array limit, which are useful for understanding invocation behavior. No contradictions.

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 tightly structured: it opens with the core function and endpoint, lists returned fields, provides sequential usage guidance, and closes with parameter and response shape. Each sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the returned fields and noting the batch response shape. It also gives usage context and parameter limits. Minor gaps include explicit error-handling behavior, but for tool selection and invocation, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema only defines loan_ids as an array of strings with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by instructing 'Pass `loan_ids` as an array (1-50)', clarifying the parameter's purpose and adding the batch limit. It could go further by explaining ID format or error behavior, but it meaningfully enhances the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns full loan contract detail by id' and enumerates the specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_loans by explicitly positioning this as the deep-dive follow-up for a specific contract.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Use after openfinance_list_loans to deep-dive on a specific contract.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and implies the alternative for broad listing. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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