Deposit Market Share Analysis

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it computes HHI and ranks, provides optional highlight, and output structure. No contradictions. Adds context 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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It's fairly long but every sentence adds value. Some redundancy (repeats that at least one of msa or city+state required). Still, concise for the complexity.

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 an output schema (not shown but context says has output schema), description covers entry modes, output overview, and requirements. For a complex tool with 5 params, the description is complete enough.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 100% coverage, each parameter has a description. The description adds context about how parameters relate (e.g., city requires state, msa can be looked up via fdic_search_sod). So schema already describes them, description adds usage context. Baseline 3.

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 deposit market share and concentration using FDIC SOD data. It specifies two entry modes (MSA or city+state) and mentions output includes HHI, ranked institutions, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like fdic_search_sod (which is for looking up codes).

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 explicitly tells when to use MSA vs city mode, and directs to use fdic_search_sod for looking up MSABR codes. It also states requirements (at least one of msa or city+state). No explicit when-not-to-use, but clear guidance.

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