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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the returned data categories, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements (the 'PRO' tier and access_token imply a subscription gate), rate limits, or what happens on an invalid/unknown cert.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key input and the output payloads front-loaded; nothing is wasted or repeated from 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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields makes the definition largely self-sufficient. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'PRO' tiering and auth expectations, which the schema's access_token description only partly covers.

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 coverage is 50%; access_token is documented in the schema as a subscriber token, while cert has no schema description. The description partially compensates by clarifying that cert is an FDIC certificate number rather than a name or ticker, which is the key semantic needed to call the tool correctly.

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 concrete lookup key (FDIC cert number) and enumerates the returned fields (assets, deposits, ROA/ROE, offices, regulator, holding company), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with bank_check, though the word 'Full' implies broader coverage than a mere check.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'Full profile' phrasing hints that this is the comprehensive option versus bank_check, and 'PRO.' hints at a paid/subscriber tier, but neither is stated as a condition for use. No sibling is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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