hmda_filers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns institution names, LEIs, and filing details, but it does not discuss additional behavioral aspects such as pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. This is similar to the calibration example where annotations cover the safety profile and the description adds minimal extra context, warranting a 3.

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, front-loading the core purpose, then briefly noting return fields and a practical use case. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or 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 compensates by listing return fields (institution names, LEIs, filing details). It also provides a concrete use case. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or result limits, which could be relevant for a list endpoint. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is warranted.

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 input schema provides a complete description of the only parameter (year: 'Filing year (e.g. 2022). Required.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description merely restates 'for a given year' without adding semantic depth. Per baseline rules for high schema coverage, a 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'List[s] financial institutions that filed HMDA data for a given year,' with a specific verb and resource. It also names the return fields (institution names, LEIs, filing details) and explicitly connects the tool to finding LEIs for aggregation queries, distinguishing it from other HMDA-related sibling tools.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to find LEIs for filtering aggregation queries by institution.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, falling short of the explicit when/when-not guidance that would merit a 5.

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