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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context by describing the output structure (securities relative to assets and capital, MBS concentration, AFS/HTM breakdown, risk signals, structured JSON) and explicitly notes that 'AFS/HTM breakdown is not currently available from the FDIC API.' This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral expectations, though it does not mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of outputs, and a concise note about data availability. Every element serves a purpose, and the formatting improves scannability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's analytical nature.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in prose. It covers what the tool does, what outputs to expect, and highlights a key limitation. This is complete for a tool with two parameters and good annotation support.

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% for both parameters (cert and repdte), so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but it does not need to. It maintains the baseline of 3, neither enhancing nor detracting from the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze securities portfolio size, composition, and concentration risk for an FDIC-insured institution.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on securities portfolio distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like fdic_analyze_bank_health or fdic_analyze_credit_concentration.

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 implies usage for securities portfolio analysis but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. While the context is clear, there is no direct guidance such as 'use this when analyzing MBS concentration' or 'for credit concentration, use fdic_analyze_credit_concentration instead.' This is implied rather than stated, matching a score of 3.

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