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 provenance ("BankRegReports (derived)") and a hint at the output shape (5-number summary), but says nothing about aggregation window, peer-group definition, or result units.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core comparison stated first and provenance last. The fragment style and nested parenthetical make it slightly cryptic, but there is no wasted wording.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify what the five numbers represent or what the benchmark peer group is. It covers purpose and provenance but leaves output interpretation to guesswork.

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?

Only one parameter exists, and the schema fully documents it (rssd_id as a Federal Reserve RSSD id, with an example), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no semantics about the parameter, which matches the baseline for a fully covered 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?

It states a specific comparison (one bank vs peer-group benchmarks) and a return shape (5-number summary), which goes beyond the bare name. However, it uses a fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as bank_peer_ranking, peer_analysis, or peer_groups, leaving the agent to guess which peer tool applies.

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 use this tool rather than the many peer-oriented siblings (bank_compare, peer_analysis, bank_peer_ranking), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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