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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior not in the schema: the default ordering ('most distressed first', with the metric defined as share of balance delinquent or with the special servicer). It omits pagination behavior and the default limit value, which would round it out.

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: resource first, then ordering rationale, then the optional filter. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations and fully described schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and filtering. The only gap is the lack of any hint about result set size or pagination, which matters mildly since there is no output schema.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and quota limits. The description only restates that filtering by name is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource precisely ('Public CMBS trusts') and its scope, implying a list operation that pairs with the tool name. It is distinguishable from get_trust (single trust) and search_loans (loans) by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

It states the optional name filter, which implies when the 'q' parameter is relevant, but gives no explicit cue about when to call this vs. get_trust or distress_index. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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