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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the result includes source evidence, and coverage is limited to the stored disclosure universe rather than all listed issuers. It still omits any note on result volume or pagination behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the screening criteria are front-loaded and the scope caveat is placed as a closing qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully states that source evidence is returned, and the coverage caveat sets expectations. But the undocumented 'limit' parameter and absence of any indication of result shape or ordering leave gaps for a screening tool with zero schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does convey units for two parameters ('below a percentage threshold' for headroomBelow, 'inside a month horizon' for springingWithinMonths), which is valuable, but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter or any of the defaults and bounds (limit 1-500, headroomBelow -10000-10000).

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 (Find/screen) and two precise resources: disclosed covenant headroom below a threshold and conditional springing maturities within a horizon. It is clearly distinguishable from credit.documents and credit.instrument, though it does not name them explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 by the screening semantics, and the closing sentence gives a useful scope caveat ('stored disclosure universe, not all listed issuers') that functions as a partial when-not. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over credit.documents or credit.instrument, nor any prerequisites.

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