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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are paginated, explains the page size rationale, notes the free_board flag condition, and mentions the version change (graded slabs only). It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the context makes that obvious. It also does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool, this is adequate.

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 organized into clear sections: purpose, paging caveat, parameter list, and usage note. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant. The critical paging warning is front-loaded, and the parameter list is concise.

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 paginated listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (fields like grade, ask median, etc.), the page metadata (total_matching, returned), and the use case. An agent can call it correctly and interpret the response without additional documentation.

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 must explain every parameter. It does: limit (default 50, max 500), tier (enumerated values), free_board_only (boolean), min_value_usd (0 = no floor). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, giving agents clear guidance on valid inputs and defaults.

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 explicitly states the tool lists graded slabs the Loan-Terms Oracle will quote, with specific fields (grade, ask median, census depth, etc.), and distinguishes itself from sibling loan_terms_preview by noting the free_board flag. It also mentions versioning (v2) which clarifies scope.

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?

Provides a clear 'Use this when' section stating it's for obtaining a product_id+grade for terms or checking collateral depth, and implies alternatives (loan_terms_preview for the actual quote). The paging warning also guides agents to set appropriate limits.

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