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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the returned metrics and the workflow tie-in with CERT-based follow-up tools. It doesn't contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the core purpose and search criteria, then gives actionable follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The tool is a straightforward read-only search with all six parameters fully described in the schema and safety covered by annotations. The description adds the result field list and follow-up workflow, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and route to related tools.

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 description does not need to re-document parameters. It adds value by mentioning that search is by name, state, or city, which roughly maps to the name, state, and city parameters, but otherwise it doesn't provide semantic detail beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Search FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions', and specifies search criteria (name, state, city). It also enumerates the returned fields (CERT number, name, location, total assets, deposits, net income, ROA, ROE, charter class), making the tool's function concrete and easy to distinguish from sibling FDIC tools.

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 description provides clear context: use this tool to search institutions by name, state, or city, then use the CERT number for follow-up queries to fdic_financials or fdic_history. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives such as directly querying fdic_financials for a known CERT, but the follow-up instruction gives practical routing guidance.

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