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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context instead of repeating safety information. It discloses country-level granularity, quarterly frequency, 44-economy coverage, euro-area aggregate support, historical depth, and the interpretation of positive versus negative gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded, moving from what the tool returns to why the gap matters, then to scope and accepted inputs. Each sentence carries substantive information without repetition or 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?

The description fully compensates for the missing output schema by stating that the return consists of the credit-to-GDP ratio, its trend, and the gap in percentage points of GDP. It also specifies frequency, country coverage, historical depth, and input formats, making it complete for an 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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, formats, and examples, reaching 100% schema description coverage. The narrative description adds useful context about quarterly data and country coverage but does not materially augment the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score applies.

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 unambiguously defines the tool as returning the credit-to-GDP ratio, its HP-filter trend, and the credit-to-GDP gap for one country. It clearly identifies the BIS source and the measured quantity, making it distinct from any sibling tool despite not naming alternatives.

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 strong contextual guidance, explaining that the gap is the Basel III common reference point for the countercyclical capital buffer and a standard banking-crisis early-warning signal. It never explicitly contrasts with alternatives, but the domain context and sibling list make the intended use clear.

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