bank_deposit_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data source (APRA), aggregation level (by parent group), frequency (Monthly), and output contents (deposit totals, market-share percentages, Big Four share). This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'returns data' statement, though it could mention data freshness or caveats.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The phrase 'Sources APRA' is redundant with the first sentence's mention of APRA, introducing minor waste, but overall it is concise and well-organized.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what data is returned, the source, and use cases. It omits details like the exact time period of the snapshot or the calculation of top-N concentration, but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the no-parameter nature with 'Single call' and explains the output, but there is no parameter-specific detail to add.

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 uses a clear verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource: the AU bank-deposit market-share snapshot from APRA Monthly ADI statistics aggregated by parent group. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific domain (bank deposits) and answering a specific question ('who holds the deposits in Australia right now?').

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 provides clear context for usage, stating it is 'useful for banking-competition and concentration-risk analysis.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5 but is still well above minimal.

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