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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description adds meaningful context by explaining the proxy engine, standardized severity levels, and that the output is 'signal-shaped, not assessment-shaped.' It also discloses the tool is a 'public off-site analytical proxy — not official supervisory ratings,' which is valuable beyond what annotations convey.

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-organized with clear sections: purpose, signal codes with severity, scan modes, output description, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every section is informative without redundancy. The use of bullet lists and short labeled lines keeps it scannable.

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?

The description is quite complete given the output schema exists and covers return values. It includes signal code lists, severity semantics, scan modes, and a critical caveat. However, it does not specify what happens if no scan mode parameters are provided (all parameters are optional), nor does it clarify precedence when multiple modes are combined. This is a minor gap for a tool with zero required parameters.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic structure beyond the schema by grouping parameters into three scan modes (state, certs, asset_min/asset_max) and linking min_severity to the listed severity levels. This helps the agent understand how to combine parameters, which is not explicit in the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Scan FDIC-insured institutions for early warning risk signals using the public_camels_proxy_v1 analytical engine.' It explicitly distinguishes from analytical siblings by stating the output is 'signal-shaped, not assessment-shaped' and emphasizes the early-warning nature, which sets it apart from fdic_analyze_bank_health and similar tools.

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 provides clear usage context by listing three scan modes (state-wide, explicit CERT list, asset-based) and describing the corresponding parameters. It also states the output shape and the caveat about being a public proxy, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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