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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description wisely spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that the tool is free, sourced from FFIEC filings, and that every output number is labelled filed, derived, or assumed. That provenance disclosure is a genuinely useful behavioral trait; only the output shape and peer-selection mechanics remain unstated.

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 short sentences with essentially no filler, and the core computation is front-loaded before the provenance caveat. The first sentence is densely packed (three computations in one clause), which costs a little immediate readability but not enough to warrant trimming.

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 7-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what is computed, the data source, and the trustworthiness labelling of results. What is missing is a sketch of the result payload (peer set, ratio headroom presentation), which would matter because no output schema exists.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions are unusually rich (units, defaults, interpretation of zero, regulatory reference ratios). The description adds framing — allowance-ratio hold, after-tax capital hit, peers — but no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already carries, 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 verb+resource: stress net charge-offs, computing the provision needed to hold the allowance ratio and the after-tax hit to CET1/leverage capital, with peer context. It is clearly a credit-loss stress tool, distinct from rate or liquidity siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Stress a bank's net charge-offs' and by the scenario parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as nim_rate_shock for rate-driven questions. An agent must infer the context from the purpose sentence.

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