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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it defines what 'teaches' the tally (a confirmed-but-unposted row or an undone post teaches nothing), explains that OVERRIDE beats the tally, that timesSeen is 0 for rules, and that ruleSetOn is the date set. This is exactly the kind of semantic disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded and almost every sentence carries needed semantics (basis meanings, override precedence). It is dense and runs long for a one-parameter tool, with heavy emphasis capitalization (CONFIRMED, POSTED, LEARNED, OVERRIDE, BEATS) that borders on noise, keeping it off a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself, and it does: it enumerates the returned fields (count, date range, total amount, grouping keys) and the suggestion's basis/timesSeen/ruleSetOn. An agent has enough to call it and to interpret the result 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 0% for the single counterparty parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so partially by clarifying the value is 'named as printed on the statement line', which tells the agent to pass the raw statement text, but it gives no detail on matching, casing, or unmatched names. Adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the historical, human-confirmed bank rows for a named bank counterparty, grouped by category/contact/GL account, plus the live suggestion. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling resolvers (resolve_vendor, resolve_customer) and from draft_bank_classification, which draft rather than report precedent.

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 a clear context for use ('the tenant-scoped PRECEDENT behind a suggestion, so you can explain WHY a row is being categorized a certain way') and a usage directive ('Never report an override as history'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it, so it does not reach a 5.

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