fdic_history

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals this is a safe read operation. The description adds clarity about the nature of the data (merger/acquisition/name change events) and the primary filtering method. No behavioral contradictions exist, though it doesn't disclose rate limits or return format, which is acceptable given the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Each sentence contributes: the first defines the scope, the second provides a concrete use case.

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 read-only list endpoint with full schema descriptions and annotations, this description is adequate. It explains the tool's primary purpose and usage pattern. However, since there is no output schema, it doesn't describe the return structure, which would be helpful but not essential given the simplicity.

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% with descriptive parameter names and examples. The description's mention of 'Filter by CERT number' mirrors the schema's example 'CERT:3511', so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 'Get institution event history' with specific event types (mergers, acquisitions, name changes, charter conversions), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fdic_search_institutions by focusing on history rather than current institution details. The verb 'Get' and resource 'institution event history' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to trace a specific bank's history via CERT number. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the focus on event history inherently distinguishes it from institution search or failure-specific tools. This qualifies as clear context without explicit exclusions.

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