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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: identifiers are masked to last four digits, full values live in a secret store, and reading full identifiers is deliberately not exposed as a tool due to transcript-leak concerns. This is valuable context an agent needs before relying on the returned data.

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, each earning its place: first defines the payload, second gives the canonical use case, third explains the masking behavior. The core content is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 tool has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description adequately explains the tool's scope, its role as the application-level read, and the important masking limitation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or understand the result is missing.

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 input schema already documents both parameters as UUID value wrappers, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action and resource: it returns the entire banking application including business facts, owners, documents, data provenance, and outstanding sections. It also gives the tool a clear job: it is 'the one read' for answering where the application stands and what remains.

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 a clear use case: use this when you need the whole application snapshot, especially to answer 'where is my application, and what is left?'. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like banking_get_issuance_state, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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