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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are restricted to banks/brokers 'present in the data' and exposes the returned fields, but says nothing about scope limits, pagination, or how many rows to expect, which is modest added value over the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, states the payload, and closes with the downstream use case. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned (numeric codes, bond counts). It omits result size, ordering, and whether the list is exhaustive over the dataset, which would help an agent use the codes 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument listing and introduces no phantom parameters, though 'the bank filter of search_bonds' presupposes the agent knows that filter's expected value format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the banks/brokers present in the data') and goes further by describing what each row carries (numeric codes and bond counts). It also names the sibling search_bonds as the consumer of this output, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call this to obtain values for the 'bank' filter of search_bonds, which is the classic lookup-before-filter pattern. It does not state when not to call it or what to do if the list is empty, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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