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

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses return contents (stable IDs, titles, canonical URLs) and adds a specific output requirement (every URL must be a clickable link, not summarized by IDs). The 'find or list' wording implies a read-only discovery operation, and the public-records framing covers access context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides usage conditions, return details, output formatting instructions, and exclusions in a logical order. Every sentence adds operational value for the agent, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 output schema exists and annotations are neutral, the description covers scope, query semantics, return contents, output formatting, and domain exclusions. It does not mention result limits, sorting, or empty-result behavior, but those are minor for a simple discovery tool with a single query parameter.

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 for the single 'query' parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that query can express product, institution, term, or maturity, and that the request can be phrased as find, search, list, browse, look up, show, or link. It stops short of giving query syntax examples, but for a single free-text parameter this is meaningful guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Find or list') and a precise resource ('current public BrinkerAdvisor CD, money-market, Treasury, or municipal rate records'), and identifies search criteria. It also distinguishes discovery requests from comparison and exact-ID lookups, making it easy for an agent to separate this tool from its siblings.

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 says when to use the tool: for find/search/list/browse/look up/show/link requests when no exact stable record ID is supplied, and clarifies that multi-record requests are discovery, not comparison. It also lists many exclusions (economic indicators, forecasts, account access, etc.), but it does not explicitly name the sibling tools to use instead in those excluded cases.

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