get_lenders

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: the limit is capped at 50, sort accepts specific values with a default, and filter formats (FIPS, NAICS, YYYY-Qq) are specified. It does not describe pagination, but the output schema covers return structure, making this adequate for a read-only list tool.

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 four concise sentences, front-loading the core action of listing ranked lenders. Each sentence adds necessary information (filters, sort, limit, source) without any fluff or repetition.

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 the 9-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filters, sorting, limit, and data source. It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly by documenting every parameter: state uses 2-digit FIPS, county uses 5-digit FIPS, industry uses NAICS, period ranges use YYYY-Qq, sort has three allowed values, and limit has a 50 cap. This exceeds the bare schema and adds essential context.

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 clearly states the tool lists SBA 7(a) lenders ranked by loan count, total amount, or average loan size, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the singular sibling tool get_lender and other lending aggregation tools like get_county_lending or get_state_lending.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when needing ranked lender lists with optional filters—but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions. It conveys the appropriate use case without naming siblings.

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