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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the full ranking algorithm, the exact-match-first priority, the FDIC-cert tiebreaker, default active filtering, and the specific fields returned. The "Wells Fargo Bank" example concretely demonstrates ranking behavior. This is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Purpose and ranking rule are front-loaded before the return-value and chaining details. It is a single dense paragraph with em-dashes and some redundancy (restating what the returns feed into), but nearly every clause carries actionable 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by enumerating returned fields (RSSD ID, FDIC cert, LEI, type, city/state, active status) and explaining how those IDs chain to other packs. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents limit (1-50, default 20), query, state, and status (active/closed/any, default active). The description restates the active/closed status concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (US banks, BHCs, FHCs and subsidiaries) by name, and names the exact data source (Fed NIC). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like nic_get_institution, nic_get_hierarchy, and nic_get_history, which are ID-based lookups.

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?

Gives clear context: substring match on name, and explicitly routes the agent to fdic_get_institution and the ffiec-call-reports pack for financials on the same bank. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling nic_get_institution (e.g., when the RSSD ID is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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