Evaluate Credit Risk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with those. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as edge-case handling, impact of the source parameter, or any constraints on the evaluation.

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, focused sentence that immediately names the action and the key input. It contains no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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-only tool with full parameter documentation and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how the tool fits among its siblings, which an agent needs for reliable selection.

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%, so both credit_score and source are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that credit score is the basis for the evaluation without adding deeper meaning, especially for the optional source parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Evaluate'), a resource ('credit risk'), and a criterion ('borrower's credit score'), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like calculate_dti or assess_asset_sufficiency, though it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with a sibling.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_risk_recommendation or assess_income_stability. It implies that a credit score is needed, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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