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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: line items are labeled rather than raw codes, the response states which identifier it resolved on, and schedules restrict output. It does not detail pagination or limit behavior, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 dense but well-organized: primary function, output quality, natural-language queries, identifier options, schedule narrowing, example calls, and auth note. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters and rich semantics, with no wasted sentences.

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 zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers identification, output, defaults, and narrowing. Minor omissions like exact limit/pagination behavior do not prevent correct invocation, and the output schema is absent so return-shape details are not strictly required.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that name, cert, and idrssd are alternative identifiers and that the response states which one was used. The example combining cert and schedule further clarifies usage beyond the raw 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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('a US bank's filed call report for one quarter'), and content ('balance sheet, income statement, regulatory capital, loan and deposit detail'). It also provides natural-language examples, distinguishing it from siblings like ffiec_line_item and ffiec_compare_banks.

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 explains when to use the tool via question examples, how to identify a bank by name, cert, or IDRSSD, and how to narrow results with the schedule parameter. It also notes the default quarter behavior and keyless access, giving an agent clear selection and invocation guidance.

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