score_borrower

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the median-fallback behavior for omitted fields, the non-standard 0.15 decision threshold, the recall-tuned flagging semantics, and the educational/non-advisory limitation. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before trusting the output.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by scoping, a field-defaulting note, and a compact bulleted return contract — every section is useful. The return-value bullets are somewhat longer than necessary given a dedicated output schema exists, keeping it just under a 5.

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 one-parameter scoring tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, input semantics, threshold behavior, and limitations, leaving no material gap for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 reported at 0% (the top-level 'profile' parameter has no description), so the description has to compensate. It does: it states that only annual income and loan amount are required and that every other field falls back to the population median, which is the key semantic an agent needs when populating a sparse profile.

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+resource (estimate probability of default) and scopes it to a single applicant, which cleanly separates it from compare_borrowers. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this to get a single risk number for one borrower' gives clear context for selection and implicitly routes multi-borrower cases elsewhere. It does not explicitly name or exclude sibling alternatives such as compare_borrowers or explain_prediction, so it stops short of a 5.

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