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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: data source (FDIC BankFind), weighting formula, number of institutions, historical reach, return fields, and quarterly update frequency. This is richer than typical annotation disclosure and gives the agent a strong sense of what the result means.

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 dense sentences but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the composite details, usage triggers, and update frequency. No wasted words, though splitting into a separate usage sentence would improve readability. It earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the score's composition, return fields, use cases, and freshness. The optional history parameter is well-documented in the schema, and the return fields are listed explicitly in the description, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema with a detailed description covering behavior (returns history series), limits, and tier requirement. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add more; it already provides rich 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 clearly states what the tool does: returns a 0-100 US banking-sector health score based on a quarterly composite from FDIC data, listing components and weights. This specific verb+resource clearly differentiates it from generic sibling tools, even though no sibling names are described.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call when the user asks about bank failures, banking-sector stress, or deposit safety, or when timing counterparty limits, deposit allocation, or credit-sensitive decisions.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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