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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it explains the default tier and what each tier contains, and notes that output is compact records requiring get_product_details for full detail. This adds useful context without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, tier distinction, and pointer to sibling. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient and well-structured.

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 complex search tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the high-level decision context (what each tier is for and when to use get_product_details). It doesn't enumerate all parameters or return format, but the schema and output schema cover those. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 100% and each parameter (especially tier) has a detailed description with usage guidance. The main description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only frames the overall tool purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search and filter TokenBank's instruments for earning yield with crypto.' It specifies the verb (search/filter), resource (TokenBank's yield instruments), and scope (crypto earning). It also distinguishes between the curated and imported tiers, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_product_details, which is explicitly mentioned as the follow-up tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use which tier: curated for yield questions ('what does this pay'), imported for identity questions ('is X tokenized') and never for yield rankings. It also directs to get_product_details for full records, creating a clear decision path among siblings.

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