review_div7a_loan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that unknown facts remain UNKNOWN and are never coerced to false or zero, that amounts and rates are decimal strings, and that `response_detail` defaults to summary unless `full` is requested. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond anything the schema provides, though it does not mention side effects or authorization expectations.

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 concise and well-structured: the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the engine behavior, then the crucial data-handling conventions, then the response-detail option. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 domain-specific tool with 13 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the most important non-obvious details: unknown/null handling, decimal string types, and the `full` audit option. It does not explain the exact input format for `year_of_income` or clarify how the engine gates affect results, but the output schema and parameter titles reduce the missing surface.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides cross-cutting semantics useful across many parameters: null means unknown, amounts/rates are decimal strings, and `response_detail` has a default and a `full` alternative. However, it does not explain individual parameter formats such as `year_of_income` or `loan_id`, leaving some burden on titles and defaults.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Review one operator-supplied amalgamated Division 7A loan.' It clearly names the tool's core function and scope, and the mention of 'one' loan distinguishes it from list or benchmark tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling `refuse_div7a`, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context by describing what the tool does and the engine steps it runs ('s 109N gate' and 's 109E minimum yearly repayment'). However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `refuse_div7a` or the benchmark tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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