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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description needn't restate safety. It adds real behavioral context instead: the Agregator.ro source, daily refresh, net interest after the 10% tax, included conditions, and output language. Pagination/row-cap behavior for ranking is left to the schema.

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 resource and source, then the three usage modes, then output content and language. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the final 'In Romanian' clause feels like a tacked-on footnote.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return shape across all three modes plus net-of-tax and conditions detail. It doesn't explain the amount/limit interplay for ranking, but that is already handled in the schema.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with examples, enums and defaults (including the term proximity note and audience filtering). The description's mode sentences reinforce intent but add little semantic detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Term deposit interest rates of Romanian banks') with named source and update cadence, and its domain is clearly distinct from the siblings credite (credits), curs_bnr (exchange rate) and subiectele_zilei (news). An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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 enumerates the three call modes: no term = highest rate per term, with term = every bank ranked by rate, with bank = all of that bank's current deposits. This is genuine when-to-use guidance that maps directly onto parameter combinations.

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