get_loan_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (agent key floe_...) and describes the output granularity as 'coarse' while enumerating the states. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema, though it could be more explicit about read-only semantics or error 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: the first states what it returns, the second provides usage guidance and a prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 simple nature of the tool, the description covers the return values (the four states), a key use case, and a required credential. It could be more explicit about read-only behavior or error responses, but for a state-machine getter, this is largely sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions an agent key as a requirement, but this is not a schema parameter and appears to be an authentication credential rather than a tool parameter, so it does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the baseline.

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 returns the agent's coarse credit state-machine view and enumerates the four possible states (idle, borrowing, at_limit, repaying). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_loan_health or get_credit_remaining.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to gate actions that only make sense in specific states' with a concrete example ('don't spend while at_limit'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of the highest level.

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