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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for enumerating the outputs (lender fit count, borrowing power, LVR, stamp duty, grants, scheme eligibility, LMI waivers, fixes, report link) since there is no output schema, though it omits caveats such as results being estimates against published policy rather than approvals.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the core action, the second packs the return values into a dense list with no filler. Slightly long return enumeration, but each item is a distinct result the caller needs.

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 23-parameter financial assessment with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable picture of what comes back but says little about input expectations or the estimates-vs-approvals nature of the output. Adequate, but gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 23 parameters and only 61% schema description coverage, the description adds essentially nothing about inputs — no explanation of how savings/gift/loan interact, what 'site' controls, or how multi-applicant income is combined. The enum-heavy, under-documented surface is left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking a borrower's situation against each Australian lender's published rules. It is clear what the tool computes, but it doesn't explicitly position itself against siblings like calculate_stamp_duty or check_5_percent_deposit_scheme even though it partially overlaps with them.

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?

No indication of when to use this composite assessment versus the narrower sibling tools (calculate_stamp_duty, check_5_percent_deposit_scheme, list_lender_rates). The agent must infer that this is the 'full picture' option and the others are point calculators.

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