get_credit_line_bounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an authorization requirement ('Requires a developer key (floe_live_...)') and implies read-only behavior via 'Preview.' It also states what data is returned (bounds and funded balances). It doesn't describe errors or return format, but for a simple read-only preview this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second provides usage order and auth requirement. 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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and a read-only preview purpose, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what auth is needed. It doesn't explain the structure of the returned bounds, but the tool name and description are clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. A perfect 5 would require a bit more detail on output interpretation.

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% because agent_id has a clear description ('Numeric agent id.') in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric—schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and identifies the exact resource ('valid deposit / LTV bounds and current funded balances') and the target action ('upgrading an agent to a credit line'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like open_credit_line (which opens) and get_credit_remaining (which checks remaining balance).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use BEFORE open_credit_line.' This names the direct alternative (open_credit_line) and provides a clear temporal context. While it doesn't list exclusions, the directive is sufficient and unambiguous for a pre-flight check tool.

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