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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context by detailing what the tool returns (requirements across development, validation, monitoring, governance, plus deficiency rates) and includes an example finding and source citation. This goes beyond the annotations but doesn't describe return formatting or limitations, which is acceptable for a read-only report tool.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with use cases, followed by return content, an example, and source attribution. Each sentence adds distinct value with no wasted words, though it is slightly longer than necessary and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description richly covers the returned content and regulatory sources, satisfying most of the 'what does it return' question. However, the unaddressed institution_type parameter leaves a clear gap in understanding how output is customized, making the description incomplete despite its depth.

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 schema has one parameter (institution_type) with enum values but no property description; schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions this parameter or how results vary by institution type, failing to compensate for the schema gap. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent receives no guidance on how to set or use 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 specific use cases ('preparing for a model risk management examination') and a clear verb 'Returns' listing the content (Federal Reserve SR 26-2 and OCC requirements, exam deficiency rates). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on other compliance topics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when' followed by three concrete scenarios: preparing for an MRM exam, building an SR 26-2 compliant program, or assessing an MRM framework. This provides strong context, but it does not mention exclusions or alternatives when the tool is not appropriate, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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