Holding Company Profile

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is an analytical tool based on public financial data, and it explicitly lists output components (consolidated summary, subsidiary list, structured JSON). This goes beyond mere restatement of annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the action, and well-structured with bullet points for output. Every sentence adds value, and the note about analytical nature is brief. 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?

For a tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, input options, output structure, and the nature of the data. A minor gap is the behavior when neither parameter is provided, but this is a minor edge case given the schema's explicit descriptions and the output schema's presence.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already explained in detail (e.g., cert description says it looks up the holding company). The description reinforces these semantics but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 profiles a bank holding company by grouping FDIC-insured subsidiaries and aggregating financial metrics. It specifies two lookup methods (holding company name or subsidiary CERT), which distinguishes it from siblings like fdic_get_institution and fdic_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to profile a holding company or find a subsidiary's parent. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the analytical purpose is well implied. The sibling list shows many specialized tools, and this one's role is distinct enough to be easily selected.

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