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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return fields, the null meaning of first_loan_zero_percent, the unfiltered full-catalog behavior, and the data source with attribution requirement. Missing details include error handling, sorting, and pagination beyond limit.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, filters, output details, usage caveat, and attribution are packed into three sentences. Each sentence contributes value, though the semicolon-heavy middle sentence is slightly dense.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core behavior: filterable fields, return semantics, full-catalog behavior, and data provenance. It does not mention sorting or empty-result handling, but overall is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates amount, term, and first_loan_zero in prose but does not add new semantics beyond the schema; lang and limit are covered only in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as selecting credit offers by amount, term, and first-loan-zero flag, and states that it returns terms and canonical_url. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mfo or get_reviews, which focus on different entities.

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 explicitly notes that calling without filters returns the full catalog and advises using limit or passing amount/term for targeted results. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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