get_licensed_banks_historical_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval and the covered date range is disclosed, but nothing is said about permissions, rate limits, or dataset granularity. The presence of an output schema relieves it of describing the return shape, which keeps this at a mid score.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and date scope front-loaded and no wasted words. Every clause (subject matter, geography, time range) earns its place.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately conveys subject matter, geography, and temporal scope. It could still note the current-vs-historical boundary against get_bank_branch_locations, but the core calling information is present.

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%, so all four parameters (lang, data_type, start_year, end_year) are already documented with enums and defaults. The description merely restates the three data types and the 1954-2002 window that the schema already encodes, adding no format or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) plus resource (historical data on licensed banks, bank branches, bank offices) and pins scope to Hong Kong 1954-2002. The 'historical' framing plus the explicit date range cleanly separates it from the current-location sibling get_bank_branch_locations.

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 date range and 'historical' label imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative for current data. An agent must infer the historical-vs-current distinction from the sibling's name alone.

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