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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: ranked fits with reasons and cautions, indicative rate composition, max-loan estimates from LTV/LTC/DSCR/debt-yield limits, and inclusion of non-fitting programs with reasons. It does not spell out the ranking algorithm or exact output field structure, but it is substantially more transparent than annotations alone.

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?

It is three sentences and front-loads the core action of ranking programs that fit a deal. The long parenthetical program list is useful for scope, though the final external '/find-your-loan/' reference is less useful to an agent and could be trimmed.

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 19-parameter, read-only matcher with no output schema, the description explains the returned content and the handling of non-fitting programs, while the schema fully documents parameters. It is complete enough to call correctly, though output structure and ranking details remain implicit.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, including enum meanings, defaults, and conditional notes for parameters like existing_loan and noi. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond general references to a deal and published program spreads/limits, so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 has a specific verb and resource: it ranks commercial mortgage programs that fit a deal, enumerates program categories, and states the outputs. It is distinguishable from rate or sizing tools by its fit-ranking focus, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as compare_programs or size_loan.

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?

Use is implied by 'programs ... that fit a deal' and by the note that non-fitting programs are returned with reasons. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never names compare_programs, program_rules, or size_loan as alternatives.

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