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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: results are sorted latest-first using Eastern time, and a closed date yields the next business day rather than a bare negative answer. It does not describe output shape or data freshness, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the parameter instructions. The '(latest first, Eastern time used for sorting)' parenthetical is information-dense and slightly crowded but each clause carries real meaning.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers scope, sorting, timezone, and date semantics. The remaining gap is data currency/source freshness and any per-bank coverage caveats, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining the consequence of the date parameter (business-day check plus next open day) and that omitting bank returns all banks. This goes beyond the schema's format examples.

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 names the concrete resources returned: same-day wire cutoff times per bank, Fedwire Funds Service operating hours, and 2026 Federal Reserve holidays. That enumeration clearly separates it from the fee-oriented siblings (get_bank_wire_fees, compare_bank_wire_fees) without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: pass a date to check business-day status (and get the next open day), pass a bank to narrow to one institution's cutoffs. It stops short of naming the sibling tools or stating when a different tool (e.g., fee lookup) is the better choice.

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