get_lender_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by detailing the content of the 'verified profile' (ITIN policy, states, membership rules, etc.), which is not captured in annotations. This provides useful context about what data the agent can expect.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Full verified profile') and follows with a list of included attributes, with no wasted words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 low-complexity read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear list of returned content areas, which sufficiently sets expectations. It does not explain the return format or edge cases (e.g., not found), but given the openWorldHint and simple parameters, the description is nearly complete.

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 has one parameter (name) with 0% description coverage. The description indirectly clarifies that 'name' refers to an institution by saying 'for one institution', but it doesn't explicitly map the parameter to the description or add details beyond the schema's min/max length constraints. Given the simplicity of the parameter, the description provides minimal but sufficient compensation.

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 that the tool returns a 'full verified profile for one institution' and enumerates the specific content areas (ITIN policy, states, membership rules, published terms, citations, editorial coverage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_itin_lenders (search) and get_guide (guides), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 for looking up a specific institution ('for one institution') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_itin_lenders. There are no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' directives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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