fdic_search_institutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond this: it clarifies that assets and deposits are in thousands of dollars and provides example filter syntax (e.g., STALP:"CA", ACTIVE:1). This provides useful behavioral information about how to construct queries, though it does not detail response format or pagination behavior.

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 concise (four short sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, then lists filter types, shows example syntax, and closes with the units clarification. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, what filters are available, and key units. It does not explicitly describe the response shape, but the 'fields' parameter in the schema hints at returned columns. For a search tool with good schema coverage and annotations, this is reasonably 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that assets and deposits are in thousands of dollars, which is not stated in the schema. It also gives example filter values that illustrate how to use the 'filters' parameter, enhancing comprehension.

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 searches FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fdic_failures, fdic_financials, and fdic_history by focusing on institution search.

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 makes clear the tool is for searching institutions with filters by state, name, charter type, asset size, and active status. It provides concrete filter examples but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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