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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the 'Read-only' tail is largely redundant. However, the description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: the default sort, the hard cap of at most 20 results, and a detailed inventory of what is computed (qualified vs. late repayments, defaults marked on chain, losses including past-due plus grace).

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and every clause enumerates concrete data fields rather than filler. The tradeoff is a single dense run-on paragraph with heavy parenthetical nesting that is harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively (age, stake, lines, backed loans, repayment outcomes, open loans, defaults, losses, payer identity) plus the filtering/sorting/cap behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already states 'The backer's (pool root's) agent id, e.g. 6228. Omit for the busiest backers.' The narrative restates the with/without-root_id behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (the public record of a Priors backer/desk), and its scope is distinguishable from siblings like agent_record, pool_stats, or score_of by naming the exact entity and the data set (age, stake, lines, loans, losses, repayments). An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit context for when to use it ('before backing next to a backer or trusting the agents it backs') and clarifies the two invocation modes via root_id (specific backer vs. busiest backers). It doesn't name a specific alternative sibling or a when-not-to-use condition, 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.