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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context not in the annotations: the data is an annual snapshot and results are sorted by deposit volume. It does not, however, say what happens with no state/city filter or how the 200-row cap interacts with results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the data source and scope followed by the return shape and a use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully states what is returned and how it is ordered. The main gap is the unaddressed unfiltered case (all three parameters are optional) and whether geography beyond state/city is supported, which an agent might need before calling.

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 city, state, and limit (default 25, max 200) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior (e.g., whether state and city combine as a filter), 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?

Names a specific resource (branch-office deposits), the source dataset (FDIC Summary of Deposits, annual snapshot), and the output ordering (by deposit volume). It is clearly not the same as fdic_financials or fdic_failures, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the other FDIC_* siblings, 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?

It offers one implied use case ('useful for measuring local-market banking concentration'), which hints at context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of alternatives like fdic_search_institutions for institution-level data, and no prerequisites.

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