get_loan_health

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the API key requirement and the specific metrics checked, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe error/edge-case 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 concise sentences; the first front-loads the tool's purpose and scope, the second covers authentication. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only check tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the returned dimensions and the auth requirement. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating the output format or common failure conditions, so it stops short of excellent.

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?

The only parameter, loan_id, is fully described in the schema as 'Numeric loan ID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the schema coverage establishes the baseline of 3.

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 the tool checks loan health and enumerates specific dimensions (LTV, liquidation risk, accrued interest, early repayment terms). The verb+resource pairing is specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_loan or get_accrued_interest.

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?

Provides only an authentication prerequisite ('Requires any Floe API key...') and no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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