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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: results are newest first, each item carries the RBI's source URL, no arguments are accepted, and an empty or missing snapshot produces a stated note rather than silence. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the no-argument fact, and finally the edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information and there is no redundant 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?

For a parameterless read-only list tool, the description covers what is read, source, ordering, URL inclusion, and the empty-snapshot behavior. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the response at a high level.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already documents this with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Takes no arguments', which is useful even though the schema is clear. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 action ('Read'), a specific resource ('latest RBI enforcement and supervisory actions'), and enumerates content types (monetary penalties, licence cancellations, supervisory directions) plus source and order. This clearly differentiates the tool from the sibling tools by domain and function.

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 makes the tool's purpose and scope clear, including that it takes no arguments and that it handles a missing snapshot explicitly. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the context is sufficiently unambiguous.

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