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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: ratios are computed from Call Report data, are 'UBPR-equivalent, not official FFIEC UBPR output', and the tool is analytical based on public data. This clarifies the nature of results without contradicting annotations.

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 with a clear lead sentence, a bulleted list of output categories, and a brief note. Every section earns its place by informing the agent about scope, outputs, and data provenance. It is appropriately sized for a complex analysis tool and front-loads the main purpose.

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 tool is a multi-faceted analytical tool, and the description covers all major output areas (summary, mix, capital, liquidity, growth) and mentions the output format (structured JSON). The caveat about non-official UBPR adds important context. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. It is complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the report date default and the institution certificate implicitly but does not explain how parameters affect the analysis. It provides no extra syntax or format details. Thus it meets but does not exceed the schema's contribution.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Compute UBPR-equivalent ratio analysis for an FDIC-insured institution.' It enumerates distinct output categories (summary ratios, loan mix, capital adequacy, liquidity, growth), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools focused on other analyses like bank health, credit concentration, or funding profile.

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?

While no explicit 'use when' or alternative tools are named, the description clearly implies usage context: any time UBPR-equivalent ratio analysis is needed, including specific ratio categories. It also notes the non-official FFIEC status, which sets expectations. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are present, but the scope is sufficiently clear.

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