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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral assurance: 'it moves no money and records nothing.' This goes beyond the structured hints by spelling out the actual side-effect-free behavior, which is valuable for a banking-related tool.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and side-effect profile without redundancy. The main action is front-loaded and the read-only clarification is concise and immediately useful.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the side-effect profile, and the resource it applies to. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 only parameter, applicationId, is fully documented in the schema as a 'UUID value wrapper' with a nested value property. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline 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 verb ('Returns') and resource ('suggested opening deposit for a banking application and the reason for that figure'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like banking_confirm_initial_transfer and banking_get_banking_application by focusing on a preview of the suggested deposit amount.

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 implies this is a preview/suggestion tool, so an agent can infer it should be used when the initial transfer amount needs to be shown before any commitment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only framing provides clear context for when it is appropriate.

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