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 core safety profile is known. The description adds that the operation returns failure records with pagination and points to a field catalog, which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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: the first states the primary purpose and filter options, the second describes the return behavior and schema reference. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or padded wording. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 the detailed input schema, output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the core scenario (searching failed institutions with filters) and references the full field catalog. It doesn't explicitly mention how this differs from fdic_search_institutions, but the 'failed' qualifier makes the focus clear. Slight room for improvement in explicitly addressing pagination defaults.

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%, with all six parameters thoroughly explained in the schema—including examples and syntax. The description adds only high-level filter categories (name, state, date range, etc.), which are helpful but not mapped directly to parameter names. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when 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 uses a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('failed FDIC-insured institutions'), and it clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on failures. It also lists the filter dimensions (name, state, date range, resolution type, cost), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly opens with 'Use this when the user wants details on failed FDIC-insured institutions filtered by...', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools (e.g., fdic_get_institution_failure for a single failure), so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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