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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that every figure carries an as-of date and primary source, and that unpublished limits are explicitly marked as such — valuable trust/freshness context an agent cannot get from structured fields.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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the content inventory leads, then the sourcing/freshness caveat. The long enumeration of metrics is dense but each item tells the agent what it can retrieve; 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 has to convey what comes back and does so thoroughly — metrics, fit commentary, comparable programs, provenance, and the 'not published' case. Only gap is how the result relates to sibling tools for downstream comparison or matching.

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 the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description adds nothing about the program slug or how to choose among the 27 enumerated values. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the resource: everything published about one commercial mortgage program, itemized across eligibility, sizing, leverage, coverage, term, recourse, prepayment, and pricing. It is distinguishable from sizing/rate siblings by that breadth, though it never names a sibling tool to contrast against (the phrase 'programs to compare it with' refers to returned content, not the compare_programs tool).

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus match_programs, compare_programs, or get_rates — the agent must infer routing from the itemized content list. The 'who it fits and who should look elsewhere' phrase implies use for program-fit research but is not framed as guidance.

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