Analyze Credit Concentration

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, which the description reinforces by labeling it as analytical and based on public data. The description adds behavioral specifics: it computes metrics per 2006 interagency guidance and flags concentration risks, which go beyond annotations.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of outputs, and a final note on data source. Every sentence adds value without 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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, key metrics, regulatory guidance, and data source. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and output.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters documented (FDIC Certificate Number and report date). The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 purpose: analyzing loan portfolio composition and credit concentration risk for an FDIC-insured institution. It lists specific outputs like CRE concentration relative to capital and loan-type breakdown, and distinguishes it from siblings focusing on health, funding, or securities.

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 implies when to use the tool (when credit concentration analysis is needed) by detailing the analytical outputs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context and sibling tool names (e.g., fdic_analyze_bank_health) make the use case clear.

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