Search FDIC BankFind

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds value by specifying the result structure (up to 8 results with id, title, and source URL), which is not inferable from annotations. No contradiction with 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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that deliver the essential purpose, usage context, and result format with no superfluous words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it usefully highlights the result fields. It lacks details on query syntax or pagination, but for a straightforward search tool with one parameter, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'query' parameter, the burden on the description is minimal. The description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema's 'Natural-language search query,' but adds no meaningful new semantics. 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 it provides 'citation-friendly FDIC BankFind search results' for specific categories like institutions, failed banks, branches, or schema documentation. It effectively communicates the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that target narrower sub-types (e.g., fdic_search_institutions).

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 advises when to use the tool ('when the model needs citation-friendly FDIC BankFind search results') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggestions for alternatives among the many sibling search tools. This forces the agent to infer context from other tool descriptions.

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