loan_get_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, such as the two-array return structure and the meaning of each currency type. [PUBLIC] also signals no authentication requirement.

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?

Three sentences are each purposeful: the first defines the operation, the second details the return structure, and the third gives usage context. Information is front-loaded and there is no 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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the agent will receive and how to interpret it. It also tells the agent when in the workflow to call it, making the description complete for a zero-parameter read-only config 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The description compensates well by explaining the output, which is the only semantically relevant content.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currency configuration for loans'), then details exactly what is returned: guarantee_currencies and loan_currencies with their associated fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like loan_create or loan_get_simulation.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool before creating a loan to understand available options and limits. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of use is clear.

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