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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds value by describing the return shape (name, what it does, inputs) and the 'free' cost trait, which annotations don't convey. It does not describe pagination or result limits, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape; most sentences earn their place. The enumerated tool-name list is somewhat long but serves to signal the breadth an agent can expect, so it's defensible rather than wasteful.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what it returns, how to filter, and how to act on results. Missing only edge-case details such as empty-result behavior or result caps.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'search' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example filter terms ('banking', 'oversight') that hint at matching against tool names/descriptions, but the schema's own example already covers this, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — it returns each tool's name, function, and inputs — and clearly frames itself as a catalog of tools not listed up front. An agent can distinguish this from operational siblings like sebbi_banking_pay_check or sebbi_overview without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says to pass 'search' to filter (with concrete example terms) and, critically, that any discovered tool is invoked via sebbi_tool — this closes the discovery-to-invocation loop. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling like sebbi_overview instead, so it's strong context without explicit exclusions.

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