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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context: it labels the tool as 'analytical' and states it uses 'public financial data'. It does not go beyond the annotations with details like rate limits or auth requirements, but there are none to disclose. The output list is also partially redundant with the existing output 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 well-structured and efficient: a single opening sentence, a compact bulleted list of outputs, and a short note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only analytical tool with two simple parameters, strong annotations, and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It clearly enumerates what the user can expect from the output. The only gap is the lack of explicit tie-ins to sibling tools or when-not-to-use guidance, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%: both 'cert' and 'repdte' have clear descriptions (FDIC Certificate Number, Report date with pattern and default). The tool description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully.

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 tool's function: 'Analyze deposit composition, wholesale funding reliance, and funding risk for an FDIC-insured institution.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools covering other analytical areas like credit concentration or securities portfolio. The detailed output bullets further solidify the specific purpose.

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 establishes clear usage context by focusing on funding risk and deposit composition, which implies when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the analytical scope is sufficiently unambiguous. The note about being an analytical tool based on public data adds a minor qualifier.

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