Assess Asset Sufficiency

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral detail beyond stating the assessment. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not describe any additional side effects, output shape, or edge-case behavior.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough. The agent knows exactly what inputs to pass and what question the tool answers; return values are presumably covered by the output schema.

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 100%, with both parameters described ('Requested loan amount in dollars', 'Total verified assets in dollars'). The description only adds the relationship between them, which is the tool's purpose, so it does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and identifies a precise resource: the borrower's asset reserves relative to the loan amount. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_income_stability, calculate_dti, calculate_ltv, and evaluate_credit_risk.

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 when to use it—when the question is about asset reserves vs loan amount—but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The presence of sibling tools is not leveraged to steer selection.

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