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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world semantics, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: fuzzy/partial name matching, that no API key is required ('Keyless'), and what fields are returned. It omits minor details like pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit field, but the safety profile is already carried by annotations.

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?

Four sentences plus two example calls, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping before examples and the 'Keyless' note. Every clause earns its place — examples clarify usage, the fuzzy-match note explains behavior, and the returned-field list is compact. Slightly dense but well organized.

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 optional-parameter search tool, the description is thorough: it covers filters, fuzzy matching, return fields, example calls, and the keyless access requirement. Since there is no output schema, the returned-field list in the description carries that burden adequately. It doesn't specify output structure (list vs. single object) or empty-result behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema provides (name, city, state filters, limit), adding only mild reinforcement such as 'partial names work' for the name parameter, which the schema already notes. The examples mirror the schema examples rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find US banks and savings institutions that file the FFIEC Call Report') and scopes the search dimensions (name, city, state). The listed return fields (IDRSSD, FDIC certificate, form type 031/041/051, total assets) clearly differentiate it from FFIEC siblings like ffiec_call_report, ffiec_compare_banks, and ffiec_line_item, which handle single-bank data, comparison, and line items respectively.

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?

Concrete usage context is given through natural-language examples ('banks in Austin Texas', 'is there a bank called Zions', 'list Ohio banks') plus two explicit call examples. However, it never names alternative siblings or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when to pick ffiec_call_report over it), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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