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 meaningful transparency by disclosing that returns include both active and historical actions, the specific enforcement action types, and that the source is official OCC supervisory records, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 use case and returns, includes a concrete example, and cites the source. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes useful context; the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use cases, data scope (active/historical, action types), source authority, and a realistic example. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool with confidence.

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 is 100% and the sole parameter institution_name already includes an example ('First National Bank of Springfield'). The description reinforces this example but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns active and historical OCC enforcement actions' and specifies the resource (OCC supervision records). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact regulator and action types (formal agreements, consent orders, cease-and-desist orders, civil money penalties), making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 frames when to use the tool: 'Use when assessing regulatory risk for a national bank or federal thrift before a merger, acquisition, partnership, correspondent banking relationship, or vendor engagement.' It provides strong contextual guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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