isw_salary_lending

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is high-risk and creates debt, and that confirm must be true. However, it lacks details on idempotency, reversibility, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by key behavioral notes. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, high-risk, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the loan request process, expected response, or how to avoid errors, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 43%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the confirm parameter. For 5 out of 7 parameters, no additional context is provided, which does not compensate for low schema coverage.

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 'Request a salary loan,' which is a specific verb+resource. It adds context about high risk and debt, but does not differentiate from sibling loan tools like isw_request_nano_loan or isw_value_financing.

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?

The description mentions 'requires confirm: true' which hints at a prerequisite, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. Given the presence of other loan tools, this is a gap.

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