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 description does not need to restate safety. It adds the behavior that the tool retrieves 'full citation text' and accepts various id formats, but it does not disclose edge-case behaviors (e.g., invalid id handling, response format beyond what output schema provides). This is acceptable but not rich.

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-loaded with the usage instruction, then provides concrete examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema present, the description fully covers when to use it and how to invoke it. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of the single 'id' parameter, including its description with format examples. The tool description repeats these same examples without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('FDIC BankFind Result' as 'full citation text for a result returned by search'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by implying it is the post-search retrieval step, and provides concrete id format examples (e.g., 'institution:3511', 'schema:institutions'), which eliminate ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Use this when the model needs the full citation text for a result returned by search,' which is an explicit usage context. It gives example id formats as guidance, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like fdic_get_institution, making the alternative boundary slightly implicit.

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