refuse_div7a

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior, but 'refuse' is ambiguous: does it return a rejection, raise an error, or record a refusal? It also does not explain what happens to in-scope matters or what 'MYR' means. The operational effect is under-specified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though the cryptic 'MYR' slightly hurts precision. Overall it earns its place without waste.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this description is not enough for reliable tool use. It provides a useful scope rule, but the agent still needs to infer what 'refuse' does, what the parameters mean, and how this connects to the reviewed loan workflow. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fill these gaps.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the five parameters. It does not clarify 'loan_principal' format, the meaning of 'start_fy', or how 'is_secured_25_year' affects the refusal decision. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Refuse Division 7A matters') and a clear scope condition ('outside the reviewed loan/MYR scope'). It distinguishes itself from likely sibling review_div7a_loan by implying this is the negative decision path, though 'MYR' and 'reviewed loan' are not defined.

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 phrase 'outside the reviewed loan/MYR scope' gives an explicit condition for when this tool should be used: when a Division 7A matter falls outside the already-reviewed scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope condition effectively separates it from review_div7a_loan.

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