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

Annotations already mark this tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond the annotations: the data source (FDIC call report public aggregates) and the $0.02 USDC per-call cost. It does not mention update frequency or response format, but the annotated safety profile lowers the burden, making this adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core resource and metric list before adding source, audience, and pricing. Each sentence carries distinct information, with no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key facts an agent needs: required grouping dimension, the metrics in the returned benchmark, data source, audience, and cost. It lacks a concrete example of the return payload or a note on benchmark vintage, but nothing critical to selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 description tells the agent the outputs (CET1, NIM, etc.) and that results are grouped by asset size tier, which maps to the required parameter. It does not explain the optional bank_type parameter or the meaning of the tier enum values, though those values are largely self-describing. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies the resource ('bank regulatory capital and financial performance benchmarks'), names specific metrics (CET1, Tier 1 leverage, NIM, efficiency ratio, charge-off rates, loan-to-deposit ratio), and the grouping dimension ('by asset size tier'). It is clear enough to be distinguished from most siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts it with adjacent tools like get_bank_financial_intelligence or get_credit_union_benchmark, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 intended audience ('bank CFOs, risk officers, and bank analysts') and the 'FDIC call report' source provide clear context for when this bank-benchmark tool is appropriate. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools (e.g., get_credit_union_benchmark for credit unions), 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.