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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real traits the annotations don't: default sort order ("most-recent first") and the exact returned fields, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filters before the use cases. Efficient overall, though the trailing use-case sentence is the softest and could be trimmed without loss.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the sort order. All five parameters are covered by the schema, and the filter/sort/return picture is complete for an agent to call it 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 the schema already documents limit, offset, state, start_date, and end_date. The description only restates the state/date filtering at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail, so it sits at the baseline.

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 + resource ("List FDIC bank failures") and even names the content it returns (failure date, resolution type). It's unambiguous versus the other fdic_* siblings, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from them (e.g., fdic_search_institutions, fdic_history).

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?

Gives clear domain context for when to reach for it ("systemic-risk research, historical bank-stability analysis, or compliance work") plus the filter conditions. It stops short of naming alternatives or any when-not-to-use case, so it's context without routing.

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