fdic_failures

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds meaningful context: it specifies the data scope (since 1934), key fields returned (failure date, cost, resolution type, acquiring institution), and filtering behavior. It does not describe pagination or response format, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable.

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 three sentences and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third gives filter examples. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters, lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers key elements: it states the data scope, lists important return fields, and provides filter examples. It omits details like default limits or sorting options, but these are already described in the schema, so the overall context is fairly complete.

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%, and the schema already includes concrete examples for the filters parameter (e.g., 'PSTALP:"GA"' and date ranges). The description only repeats these examples in a simplified form, adding little beyond the schema. Thus, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Get FDIC-insured bank failures — all failures since 1934.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource (FDIC-insured bank failures), and provides a scope ('all failures since 1934'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fdic_history or fdic_search_institutions.

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 gives implicit usage context by describing the data and filters (e.g., 'Filter by state: PSTALP:"GA", by year range'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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