Creditable

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description correctly doesn't restate safety. It adds genuine value by disclosing what is NOT published (cash check size, duration, funding guarantee, review deadline), preventing the agent from expecting or re-querying for those fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope limits, then the commitment caveat. No filler, though the negative-information sentence is slightly dense and could be split for scanability.

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 zero-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: what is returned (offer plus submission rules) and what is explicitly absent. A brief pointer to validate_submission or submit_project as the next step would make it fully 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics for the description to supplement; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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: read the published builder offer and submission rules from 'Creditable'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings submit_project and validate_submission by being the read-only counterpart, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 closing line 'Applying creates no commitment' implies this should be read before submit_project, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or that submit_project/validate_submission are the alternatives once the rules are understood. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false) by defining the success contract ('saved:true and a reference'), disclaiming downstream meaning ('it is not selection or funding'), clarifying the file-handling boundary ('no files are uploaded through MCP; authorized material links are supported'), and specifying idempotent retry behavior. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before a one-way external write.

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?

Five tight sentences with the purpose and gating requirements front-loaded, followed by retry semantics and outcome disclaimers. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

Despite a deeply nested schema and no output schema, the description supplies the success signal, the failure/retry protocol, the consent and authorization gates, and the file-handling constraint. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties confirmSubmission to founder approval of 'these exact details/materials', reinforces founder_authorized:true and consent as hard gates, and explains that materials must be links rather than uploads. It does not explain the nested source/context fields, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Send an actual founder-approved startup submission to Creditable's private review queue') and the word 'actual' implicitly contrasts with the sibling validate_submission, which only checks a submission. An agent can distinguish this from read_program and validate_submission without opening any 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 clear preconditions for use: explicit confirmation, founder_authorized:true, and review/contact consent, plus a retry rule ('reuse the exact UUID and body after a timeout'). It stops short of explicitly naming validate_submission as the preceding step or read_program as an unrelated alternative, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuine value: it confirms nothing is persisted or sent and discloses a privacy trait ('does not return personal details'). These are real behavioral facts beyond the structured hints.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the no-persistence constraint is front-loaded where it matters most for a read-only dry-run.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it does NOT return (personal details) but never says what it DOES return—validation errors, a pass/fail flag, a normalized object. That missing return-shape cue is a meaningful gap for a single deeply-nested input.

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 100% schema coverage, the heavily-annotated nested schema already documents the trimming rules and the submitted_by.founder_authorized requirement. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven coverage 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 (check/validate) and resource (project details against the intake schema), and the phrase 'without saving or sending an application' clearly separates it from its write sibling submit_project. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, but an agent can infer the read-only validation role.

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 'founder-approved' precondition and 'without saving or sending' phrasing imply this is a dry-run to run before submit_project, so usage is inferable. However, it never explicitly says 'use this before calling submit_project' or states when to prefer it, leaving the routing to inference.

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