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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context beyond that: the tool is free, and every returned figure is labeled as filed, derived, or assumed, which tells an agent how much to trust the numbers. It does not address latency or peer-band definition, so it falls short of a 5.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the provenance detail last. The semicolon-heavy packing of three ideas is slightly dense, but nothing is wasted or 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 only two parameters at full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description needs little more. It covers the source of truth and the provenance labeling of results; only the peer-band definition and any coverage limits are left implicit.

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%, including the cycle enum explanation that both betas share one cycle for comparability, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing additional about the certificate or cycle parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 comparison (loan beta vs deposit beta) plus a secondary action (rank the spread against asset-band peers) and the data source (FFIEC filings). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as nim_rate_shock or deposit_pricing_decision, which address different analytical questions.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the beta-comparison tool, but the description names no alternatives and gives no condition for choosing it over nim_rate_shock or deposit_pricing_decision. There are also no stated prerequisites beyond the certificate.

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