cal_search_lenders

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are ranked best-first with score, qualifying reasons, and blockers (state license gaps, FICO/LTV overlays). It mentions use of a live library and default behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or idempotent, which is a minor gap.

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 consists of three concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third explains defaults. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned (lenders ranked with score, reasons, blockers) and mentions defaults and expansion. It is mostly complete for a search tool, though it could specify the output structure (e.g., list of objects) and whether results are real-time or cached.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context by grouping parameters as scenario details (FICO, LTV, loan amount, occupancy) and mentioning defaults for expand and includeBlocked, but it does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Search Cal's scoped wholesale-lender library for programs that fit a loan scenario,' specifying the verb (search), resource (wholesale-lender library), and purpose (fit a loan scenario). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cal_lender_details and cal_dpa_search by focusing on lender discovery.

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 explicitly advises using this tool for 'who does X?' or 'which lender for Y?' questions and recommends passing as much scenario detail as possible. It provides context on defaults (top 5, expand for top 15) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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