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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data posture are covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data source (FFIEC Call Report plus UBPR via BankRegReports), units ($000s for dollars, percentages for ratios), and the returned granularity (one row per peer, formula and filing lines per ratio). It is silent on history availability limits, whether peers are pulled at the same as_of, and any latency or cost of large peer/quarter combinations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the comparison shape and followed by source and units, with no filler. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a full clause, which slightly slows the first read, but nothing is redundant.

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 does a good job describing what comes back (median, percentiles, rank, per-ratio formula and filing lines) and in what units. For a six-parameter, single-required-parameter analytic tool it leaves gaps around peer selection behaviour (what the presets mean, how peer_ids interacts with peers beyond the schema's 'overrides') and the default history window.

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 six well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description contributes meaning by capping history at 20 quarters, which echoes the quarters bound, and by framing the single-bank-versus-peers axis that peer_ids and peers select between. It adds no syntax or override precedence detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource and comparison shape: one bank versus one row per peer over up to 20 quarters, returning median, percentiles and rank. That is far more informative than a name restatement, and the output surface (formula plus filing lines per ratio) is concrete. It does not name or differentiate against near-siblings such as peer_comparison or bank_peer_ranking, so an agent must infer the split itself.

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 framing 'one bank against one row per peer' implies the use case of benchmarking a single institution against a peer set, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling for the related jobs (peer set discovery, rankings).

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