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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing what is returned (assets, deposits, loans, capital ratios, income, asset quality) and the ordering ('most recent quarters first'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of auth/rate-limit details.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource+key, then the payload contents, then the ordering. No wasted words and the most decision-relevant information 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?

For a 2-param read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return contents and ordering that the structured fields omit. It is nearly complete; only the absence of sibling disambiguation keeps it from a 5.

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%, with both params documented (cert sourced from fdic_search_institutions, limit bounded 1-40 default 4). The description reinforces the CERT identifier but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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'), resource ('quarterly financial data for a specific bank'), and identity key ('CERT number'), then enumerates the returned fields (assets, deposits, loans, capital ratios, income, asset quality). It is clearly distinct from a lookup tool, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings like fdic_deposits, fdic_summary, or bank_health_report.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The description implies it is a per-bank quarterly financials tool, but with siblings like fdic_summary, fdic_deposits, and bank_health_report in the same family, the agent gets no help choosing between them.

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