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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds value by noting it is free with no API key, that figures are citable from official FFIEC filings, and that coverage spans all 4,296 institutions. It does not disclose behavior for not-found banks, but given the read-only hint this is a minor gap.

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 action and resource, then flows logically through metrics, coverage, usage guidance, and constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information; it is slightly verbose but not padded.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and operational details (free, no key, single institution). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 'name' is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%), including examples and minimum length. The description reinforces the 'one institution per call' constraint but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up one US bank's balance-sheet stress metrics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (AOCI burden, uninsured deposit ratio, non-performing loan ratio, total assets, state). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_bank_stress_dataset_info' by focusing on per-bank lookup rather than dataset metadata.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when an agent needs a grounded answer to "how stressed is this bank?"') and states a constraint ('One institution per call'). It does not name an alternative tool for exclusion, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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