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 valuable behavioral context: it states the tool 'fans in' multiple sources and 'degrades per-section on source_unavailable,' which describes partial result behavior. It also discloses the cost ($3.00 USDC per call). These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand what to expect.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the usage context, then lists the aggregated sources, then notes the degradation behavior and required input. It's efficient and free of fluff. The list of sources is a bit long but necessary. Overall, concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, aggregation behavior, degradation, cost, and required input. However, it does not describe the optional parameters, which are essential for fine-tuning the query. Additionally, with no output schema, the agent has no idea what the result structure looks like. For a composite tool of this complexity, this is a moderate gap.

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 0%, meaning the description should explain the parameters. It only mentions 'institution_name (required)' and ignores the four optional parameters (aml_focus, asset_size_tier, institution_type, credit_union_asset_tier). While their enum values provide some clues, the description does not clarify their purpose or interaction. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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's purpose: 'diligencing a bank or financial institution counterparty before onboarding, funding, or transaction approval.' It specifies the resource (bank/financial institution counterparty) and the action (diligence). It also lists the data sources it aggregates, distinguishing it from individual sibling tools like get_bank_regulatory_benchmark or get_aml_regulatory_benchmark, which are single-source tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'before onboarding, funding, or transaction approval.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but by listing the fanned-in sources it implies that for a specific source alone, an agent might use the sibling tool. This is reasonable guidance, though not exhaustive.

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