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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are pre-computed (not computed on demand) and are derived from BankRegReports, plus it discloses the shape of the statistics (mean plus a 5-number summary) rather than raw records. It does not cover freshness, coverage limits, or behavior when a metric/tier combination has no 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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded. The parenthetical source note is slightly noisy but cheap and adds provenance.

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 three optional parameters, full schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is adequate but not complete: an agent still cannot tell from it when to prefer this over cu_peer_benchmarks, peer_comparison, or peer_analysis, nor whether it returns national benchmark rows only. The return-shape hint partially compensates for the missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a description, including cross-references to the `metrics` tool for valid ids and to `tier` for the same tier labels. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (peer-group benchmarks) and even the statistics returned (mean + 5-number summary) broken out by asset tier, so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cu_peer_benchmarks, peer_comparison, or peer_analysis, which is what would be needed for a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many peer/industry siblings, and no statement of prerequisites or typical workflow. The agent must infer usage from the name and the returned-statistics clause alone.

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