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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the three sizing tests, states which test binds, and documents default assumptions for omitted limits and the rate.

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 dense but front-loaded: it first states the core result, then explains the three tests and default assumptions. Every sentence carries useful information for a complex sizing tool, with no filler.

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 the tool's complexity, rich schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the calculation logic and defaults, though without an output schema it could more explicitly describe the full return shape beyond the maximum loan and binding test.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining that omitted limits default to recent CMBS percentile assumptions by property type and that the rate defaults to the 90-day median, which is not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: sizing the maximum CMBS loan on a property. It also names the three lender sizing tests and says the result identifies which test binds, which is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_cmbs_rates or get_cmbs_underwriting.

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 description implies the tool is used to size a CMBS loan, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as get_cmbs_underwriting or get_cmbs_rates. There are no exclusions or routing instructions, so usage is only implied.

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