Explain Eligibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or if any side effects occur. The description mentions output content but not behavioral traits like required permissions or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could potentially include more context without being verbose.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return values (status, remarks, manual review). No mention of error cases or format. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is minimally adequate but lacks full completeness.

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% with one parameter. The description adds an example format (e.g. LN-20260709110527), which is helpful but not essential since the schema already defines minLength and type. Baseline 3 as schema 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 clearly states the tool explains loan application eligibility in business-friendly language, specifying the output includes eligibility status, remarks, and manual review indication. The verb 'Explain' and resource 'Eligibility' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings that might just return status or summary.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings like GetLoanStatus or GetLoanSummary could overlap, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts. Implied usage is for detailed explanation, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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