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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are limited to active banks, can be ranked by assets or weakest ROA, and that the tool is PRO-gated, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe limit/pagination behavior, or detail authentication requirements beyond the schema.

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 compact sentence plus a PRO marker, with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple screening tool.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, scope, ranking modes, and use cases. However, it leaves gaps around the limit parameter, auth expectations, and return shape that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 coverage is 50%, with descriptions for sort and access_token but not state or limit. The description adds meaning for state scoping and the two ranking modes, but it does not explain the limit parameter or access_token requirements beyond the word PRO.

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 resource and scope: active banks in a state, ranked by assets or weakest ROA. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like bank_check or bank_profile, but the screening purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear intended use cases: B2B sales, vendors, and counterparty screens. It does not mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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