get_lending_outcomes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals API-level requirements (vintage_from required, range limit), default behavior for vintage_to, and the nature of optional filters (2-digit FIPS, 5-digit FIPS, NAICS). This goes beyond a simple 'get data' statement, though it does not describe output layout (covered by output schema) or potential error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value: what the tool returns, key API constraints, and filter details. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, API constraints, and filter dimensions, making it fairly complete. Minor gaps include lack of explicit data availability range and potential error handling, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of vintage_from/vintage_to, including the default and range constraint, and specifies exact formats for state (2-digit FIPS), county (5-digit FIPS), and industry (NAICS). This is valuable added meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about the data type expectations for filters.

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's function: retrieving SBA 7(a) vintage cohort charge-off outcomes, including charge-off rates, maturity status, and gross charge-off amounts. This specific verb+resource+scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling lending tools like get_county_lending or get_state_lending, which focus on broader lending metrics.

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 explains key usage constraints: vintage_from is required, vintage_to defaults to vintage_from, and the API enforces a max range of 10 years. It also lists optional filters for state, county, and industry, providing enough context for an agent to decide when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios.

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