CD Rollover Rules

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: data provenance from the bank's own disclosure and the rule that unverified fields are omitted rather than guessed, which tells the agent to expect partial objects and not to treat missing fields as errors.

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?

Two sentences, tightly front-loaded: the first gives the operation and scope, the second gives the data-quality guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information (scope) comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Within that constraint the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, for which entity, the sourcing guarantee, and the omission semantics for unverified data.

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 the single institutionId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-all-banks behavior. The description restates that scope but adds no format, id-validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Return verified CD rollover rules') plus the exact scope: one bank or every verified bank. It also enumerates the returned facts (maturity behavior, grace period, stop-rollover method, early-withdrawal penalty), which cleanly separates it from the rate-, card-, and bonus-oriented siblings.

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 scope branch is explicit — pass an institution for one bank, omit it for all verified banks — which tells the agent how to invoke it in either case. It doesn't state when to prefer a sibling tool over this one, but the sibling set covers unrelated domains (rates, cards, bonuses), so ambiguity is low.

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