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 behavioral context: it returns both active and historical records, names the source (OCC official records), and discloses a cost of $0.50 USDC per call. The example also illustrates the level of detail in the results, which goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 few sentences, each contributing value: use case, return content, example, source, and price. It is front-loaded with the most important guidance. The example is a bit long, but it demonstrates both the kind of output and the risk-analysis value, so it earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and only read-only annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use it, what data is returned, what that data looks like via an example, the authoritative source, and the per-call cost. An agent can decide to call it and know what to expect without any further documentation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that institution_name refers to a national bank or federal thrift, and the included example (First National Bank of Springfield) reinforces the expected format. This narrows the parameter domain beyond the schema's bare example.

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 what the tool does: returns active and historical OCC enforcement actions for national banks or federal thrifts, and enumerates the types of actions (formal agreements, consent orders, cease-and-desist orders, civil money penalties). It is specific about the resource and domain, which differentiates it from the many sibling tools focused on benchmarks, compliance, or other regulatory data.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when assessing regulatory risk for a national bank or federal thrift before a merger, acquisition, partnership, correspondent banking relationship, or vendor engagement.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating when not to use it, so it misses the full 5.

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