Institution Franchise Footprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that branches outside MSAs are grouped under 'Non-MSA / Rural', and it lists exact output fields (total branch count, deposits, market count, market-by-market breakdown). This goes beyond the 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, well-structured with bullet points, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the opening sentence states the tool's function, the bullet points detail outputs, and the final point handles edge cases (non-MSA). No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated in context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains inputs (cert, year), the analysis process (SOD data, MSA breakdown), and the edge case (rural branches). This is sufficient for an agent to understand and correctly invoke the tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'year' defaults to the most recent, and it clarifies the data source (Summary of Deposits). The description also notes how non-MSA branches are handled, which is not in the schema.

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 it analyzes the geographic franchise footprint using Summary of Deposits data, providing a market-by-market breakdown of branch count and deposits. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like fdic_market_share_analysis (comparative) and fdic_search_sod (raw data) by focusing on a single institution's footprint with structured output.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no guidance is given for choosing among sibling tools like fdic_market_share_analysis.

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