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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by naming the returned metrics and the CERT-as-key behavioral pattern for downstream queries. It does not discuss pagination or the active_only default, but those are covered by the input schema, so the added behavioral context is sufficient.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the search scope and returned fields, and the second gives a direct follow-up instruction. There is no wasted wording or redundancy with the schema.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the main returned fields and explains how to chain into deeper FDIC tools. Combined with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and use its result effectively.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters. The description highlights name, state, and city as the primary search keys, which is helpful, but it does not add syntax, format, or relationship details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Search'), a defined resource ('FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions'), and the search dimensions ('by name, state, or city'). It also lists concrete return fields and explicitly points to follow-up tools, making it easy to distinguish from the other FDIC sibling tools even without inspecting 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 gives practical usage context by telling the agent to use the returned CERT number for fdic_financials or fdic_history follow-ups. It does not explicitly state when not to use sibling tools like fdic_summary, fdic_deposits, or fdic_failures, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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