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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: results are ordered most-recent first. It does not disclose pagination or truncation behavior, so it remains a modest addition.

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 compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the event list and ordering. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 characterizes the return as a most-recent-first list of named event types, which an agent needs to interpret results. It is largely complete for a simple two-parameter read tool, though it omits any note on pagination or result volume.

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 both parameters (cert and limit, including the default 25 and max 100) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that filtering is by CERT but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the structured fields, 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?

The description names a specific resource (institution history events) and scope (a specific bank by CERT), plus enumerates the event types it returns. An agent can tell what it produces, though it does not differentiate itself from the closely related fdic_failures sibling, which overlaps on the 'failures' event type it lists.

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 phrase 'for a specific bank by CERT' implicitly signals that a CERT identifier is required and must be obtained first (e.g., via fdic_search_institutions), which is mild implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing away from fdic_failures or fdic_summary despite the overlapping subject matter.

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