fdic_bank_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description contributes provenance ('compiled from FDIC', '12 CFR Part 328') and the assurance that values are factual/public rather than advisory, which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing, however, about lookup failure behavior, ambiguity resolution, or coverage limits for non-reporting institutions.

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?

One compact sentence with no padding, and the source and regulatory basis are packed into it. It is slightly jargon-dense ('supervisory', '12 CFR Part 328') at the expense of a plain statement of what is returned.

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?

With one parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the shape of the returned metrics, since nothing else does. It gestures at 'health and branch metrics' without enumerating them, leaving return content underspecified for a tool with an open-world lookup.

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% — the single parameter already documents that it accepts a certificate number or a bank name with concrete examples. The description adds no format, normalization, or precedence guidance (e.g. which wins if both are supplied, case sensitivity). 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?

The description identifies the resource (FDIC bank health and branch metrics) and provenance, but never states an action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'look up', and 'bank health' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell which metrics come back. It is recognizable as an FDIC lookup but the purpose is not sharply stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus anything else, no note about name ambiguity (a name lookup could match many banks), and no mention of what to do when the certificate number is unknown. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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