get_lending_characteristics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that year and quarter are required by the API despite the schema listing them as optional, and it specifies the format for filters (2-digit FIPS, 5-digit FIPS, NAICS). It doesn't mention error handling, pagination, or exact output format, but the output schema likely covers return structure, making this a solid disclosure.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and contents, second covers required and optional parameters with formats, third provides source attribution. Every sentence is necessary and information-dense, with the most important details front-loaded.

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?

The description is quite complete for a data retrieval tool: it names all key output dimensions, specifies required vs optional parameters, and adds source context. Gaps include not stating valid quarter values or aggregator behavior, and not explicitly distinguishing when to use this over sibling lending tools. An output schema exists, so return fields are covered.

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. It does so by explaining that year and quarter are required and must be passed together, and by giving formats for state, county, and industry (2-digit FIPS, 5-digit FIPS, NAICS). It doesn't specify valid quarter values (e.g., 1-4) or year range, but overall adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get SBA 7(a) loan distributions for a single quarter', followed by an explicit list of distribution types (loan size buckets, term length buckets, interest rate histogram, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lending tools that likely provide aggregates or outcomes, not characteristic distributions.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: for a single quarter's distributions, with year and quarter required together, and optional state/county/industry filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the emphasis on 'distributions' versus other lending tools implies the use case. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement.

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