fdic_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only need to add contextual behavior. It adds that the tool provides totals by state/year, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default response shape, or query limits. This is acceptable but not rich beyond 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by intended use cases. Every word adds value, with no redundant information or filler.

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 an aggregate summary tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return values (totals, deposits, assets) and dimensions (state/year, charter type). It could mention the default limit or that it returns a list of aggregate records, but the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward summary endpoint.

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 all six parameters described in the input schema. The description merely reinforces the 'state/year' dimension mentioned in the filters parameter, but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get aggregate banking statistics' and distinguishes it from siblings like fdic_search_institutions by emphasizing aggregate totals. It also specifies the dimensions (state or charter type) and example metrics (total banks, deposits, assets), making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

'Useful for overview metrics' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for high-level summaries rather than detailed institutional data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to overview metrics gives adequate guidance.

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