get_user_loans

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It adds the authentication requirement and the dual-role (borrower/lender) behavior, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it), nor does it describe the return format, pagination behavior, or error cases. There is a clear gap but the core behavioral context is present.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and immediately followed by the authentication requirement. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a simple read tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the key scope (all loans, dual role) and the necessary auth context. Missing details like response shape or pagination are partly implied by the parameters and the nature of the tool. For a list endpoint, this is 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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that wallet_address is used to fetch loans for both borrower and lender roles, which is not present in the schema. This semantic enrichment justifies a 4.

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 'Get all loans for a wallet address' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'both as borrower and lender' clause provides a scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_loan or intent-specific tools. This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (to fetch all loans for a wallet) and includes a prerequisite (requires any Floe API key). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope and requirement provide enough guidance for most users.

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