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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety traits. It adds behavioral context by stating that the search returns up to 8 results and includes specific fields (id, title, source URL), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the usage context and result format. Every sentence earns its place—the first tells when to use, the second tells what to expect. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 search tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the return limit, and the fields. It doesn't need to explain return values in detail because the output schema exists. It could slightly improve by referencing the specific sibling alternatives, but overall it's complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'query' parameter as a natural-language search query (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter itself; it only describes the output. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate even without extra param info.

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 that the tool searches FDIC BankFind and returns up to 8 results with id, title, and source URL. It identifies the resource (FDIC BankFind) and the action (search), and specifies the scope (institutions, failed banks, branches, schema documentation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like fdic_search_institutions or fdic_search_failures, so it's clear but not fully distinct.

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 begins with 'Use this when the model needs citation-friendly FDIC BankFind search results,' which provides a clear usage context. It also implies suitability for citation purposes. However, it does not mention when to use alternative search tools or when not to use this one, falling short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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