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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world traits, so the description's added value is the cost/payment model: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls uncharged — important behavioral context for a paid tool. It also implies data vintage via "report date" but says nothing about update cadence, latency, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loads the resource and dataset provenance, then the field list, then the access modes, then pricing — a logical priority order with no filler. The long field enumeration is dense but each item describes actual returned data.

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, the description needn't explain return values, and all seven optional parameters are schema-documented; pricing and payment rails are disclosed. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the closely named sibling finance_fdic_bank, which an agent needs in order to choose 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%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the sort options and filter dimensions without adding format or edge-case detail, and even rewords the schema's "established" sort as "age."

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 resource (US FDIC-insured banks, FDIC BankFind call-report data) and enumerates the returned fields plus the four access modes (name search, state/active filter, sort, cert lookup). An agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling finance_fdic_bank, which appears to cover overlapping territory, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Search by name, filter by state and active status, sort by assets, deposits, name or age; or look up one bank by cert" gives concrete invocation recipes covering both the list and single-record cases. It also notes that failed calls are not charged, which matters for retry decisions. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. finance_fdic_bank) is given.

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