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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape (location, pattern, example, recorded reads, resolvability) and the important constraint that patterns are for recognition only, never URL construction.

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?

A single densely-packed sentence, front-loaded with the resource under discussion ('The kinds of page a bank publishes') and using a parenthetical list to carry the field enumeration efficiently. Every clause earns its place; no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so field-by-field. For a two-parameter, read-only lookup whose schema is fully documented, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the per-bank result shape (list vs. object) is left implicit.

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's mention of 'the reads recorded on it, and whether it is resolvable' loosely explains what the 'reads bar' in the resolvable_only schema means, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema itself.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns for a bank: source kinds (decision statement, calendar, rate history, press feed), URL location, pattern, example, recorded reads, and resolvability. The resource is specific and distinct from siblings like bank_status or dataset_health, though the tool's own verb is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical 'for recognising a page, never for building one' warns how the pattern may be used, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus siblings like dataset_health or bank_status, nor any prerequisites.

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