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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: data source (NCUA Call Report Data), per-call cost ($0.10 USDC), regulatory threshold (7% net worth ratio), and peer comparison behavior. This is useful transparency for a read-only data lookup.

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 key financial metrics, then adds a worked example, regulatory threshold, source, and cost. It is a bit long, but each sentence adds decision-relevant or interpretative value rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns and how to interpret it, including peer comparison and the 7% threshold. It could be more complete by explaining how to disambiguate credit unions with the same name via the optional state parameter, but it otherwise gives an agent enough context to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining both parameters. It does not explain the role of the optional 'state' parameter or how it interacts with credit_union_name, and the example is a natural-language illustration rather than a parameter mapping. The required parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description still leaves the optional state parameter's semantics unclear.

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 states a specific resource (NCUA call report financials for credit unions) and a specific verb-like purpose: evaluating a credit union for partnership, acquisition, membership, or local-market benchmarking. It names concrete outputs (assets, deposits, loans, net worth ratio, delinquency rate, ROA) and peer comparison signals, making it clearly distinguishable from bank-focused siblings.

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 says when to use the tool: when evaluating a credit union for partnership, acquisition, membership, or competitive benchmarking. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the use-case context is strong enough to guide selection.

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