can_i_get_this_loan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: 'Informational only — not a recommendation or referral' and 'EN/ES' for language support. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits or response format.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence packs the core function and scope; the second adds an important disclaimer. Every word 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?

The description outlines the key output elements (quick answer, requirements, institutions) and the optional state filter. Given no output schema and a simple read-only tool, this is sufficient. Minor missing details like response format are not critical for this type of tool.

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 covers only lang (33%). The description mentions 'loan type' as the X and 'state-filtered' as optional, which partially compensates for undocumented parameters. However, it doesn't explain state format or enumerate loan_type values, though the schema enum covers those.

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's function: providing 'the direct answer to can I get a(n) X with an ITIN?' with specific content elements (editorial quick answer, typical requirements, institutions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_itin_lenders by framing it as the direct answer rather than a lender search.

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 implies usage when a user asks about loan eligibility with an ITIN, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_itin_lenders or itin_state_info. It states 'optionally state-filtered' which gives some context, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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