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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are sourced ('with sources') and scopes the content to FY2027 fees plus exceptions, which is useful. It does not describe return format, currency/percentage conventions, or how the source citations appear.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates contents; every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned information and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and the enumerated content areas do that reasonably well for a zero-parameter reference tool. Missing only the shape of the answer (structured fields vs. prose) and whether figures are dated or jurisdiction-scoped.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless reference lookup and gives no misleading hints about filtering or selectivity.

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 names the specific resource (SBA Express program rules) and enumerates the covered content: maximum loan, guaranty, rate caps by loan size, line of credit rules, FY2027 guaranty fees and exceptions. That is clearly distinct from sibling calculators like estimate_guaranty_fee and from the live-data tool get_max_rates_today, though it never explicitly states that contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the static policy reference to consult before or after calling estimate_guaranty_fee or estimate_payment. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance, and no routing away from get_max_rates_today (live rates) versus the rate-cap rules described here.

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