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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context the schema cannot: results are tri-state (pass/review/constraint) with source and verification status, and most rules default to review. The explicit warning that no input combination yields "eligible" is exactly the expectation-setting an agent needs before relaying results to a user.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the return shape, then the critical caveat and trigger — a sensible ordering with no filler. The nine-item rule enumeration is dense and slightly list-like, but each item maps to a distinct parameter, so it earns its space.

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?

Given nine optional enum parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it screens, what comes back, how to interpret the weakest outcome, and when to reach for it. Nothing about calling it correctly is left to inference.

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 each parameter carries its own question text plus omission guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's rule list mirrors the parameter set (citizenship, size standard, change of ownership, equity injection, seller note standby, credit elsewhere) but adds no syntax, threshold, or weighting detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Screen a business acquisition against baseline SBA 7(a) requirements") and then enumerates the nine rule domains covered, so its scope is unambiguous. It is clearly a pre-qualification screener rather than a modelling tool, which distinguishes it from siblings like model_acquisition_loan or build_capital_stack.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: "Use when the user asks whether an SBA loan is an option." It also sets a firm boundary on interpretation — "This is a screen, not an eligibility finding... no answer produces 'eligible'." It does not name a sibling alternative or state when to skip this tool in favour of a full eligibility review, so it stops 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.