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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the output is a 0-100 score, the data is monthly, and it includes three specific output fields. It does not elaborate on authentication or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, the added methodology and update frequency are sufficient.

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 with no filler: the first packs the definition, formula, data source, frequency, and output fields; the second gives focused invocation guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 output schema, the description names the three output fields and defines the primary score, but it does not define stressed_bank_pct or sector_zscore in detail. The optional days parameter and history behavior are left to the schema. Overall, it covers the essential usage context well but could slightly expand on return-field semantics.

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 100%, with the optional days parameter fully documented in the schema (range, behavior, Gold-tier note). The description itself does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies; the description adds no further parameter semantics.

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 opens with a precise action and object: it returns a US banking-sector deposit-runoff velocity score, including the formula, data source, scale, and output field names. The metric name itself distinguishes it from the opaque sibling IDs, and the usage sentence further scopes when this tool is relevant.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call when the user asks about bank runs, deposit flight or outflows, uninsured deposits, or early-stage bank liquidity stress, or when timing liquidity-scenario refreshes, regional-bank exposure, or risk-desk alerts.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools by name.

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