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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields and explaining that CERT is the key for follow-up queries. It does not cover pagination defaults, rate limits, or authentication needs, but those are not critical for a read-only search tool.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The primary search action is front-loaded, followed by the return fields and the downstream CERT linkage.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the key returned fields and explains how to use the result for follow-up tools. Combined with the annotations covering safety and the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has everything needed to call this tool 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 all six parameters, including limit, offset, and active_only. The description mentions the name, state, and city filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions') and identifies the searchable fields (name, state, city). It also distinguishes the tool from downstream siblings by telling the agent to use the returned CERT number for fdic_financials or fdic_history, making the boundary clear without opening other schemas.

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 states the filter dimensions and explicitly routes follow-up work to fdic_financials or fdic_history using the CERT number. It does not state when not to use this tool or name an alternative institution-search tool, but the intended usage context is clear.

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