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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it lists the returned fields, explains the status code abbreviations, and explicitly states that street addresses are never stored or returned. This is meaningful additional context about the tool's behavior and privacy boundary.

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 fluff. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then details the return fields and a key privacy caveat, and closes with a practical scoping tip. 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 read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is contextually complete. It covers the query target, output fields, status meanings, privacy behavior, and disambiguation guidance. The lack of an output schema is offset by the explicit listing of returned data, so an agent can confidently invoke it.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already documents borrower_name, state, program, and limit. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, aside from mentioning that state scoping helps disambiguate names, but that is already implied by the schema's 'Two-letter state code to scope the search' description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Look up a small business's SBA 7(a) or 504 loan(s) by borrower name') and details the return fields, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like sba_charge_off_aggregate and sba_largest_loans by focusing on individual loan records tied to a borrower name.

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 clear context for use: searching by borrower name, optionally scoping to a state to disambiguate common business names, and covering both 7(a) and 504 programs. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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