Search FDIC BankFind

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive Introducing the 8-result cap and returned fields is useful, but the description does not add caveats such as external data variability, pagination limits, or source reliability beyond what annotations and the output schema already imply.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the when-to-use guidance, then gives the result shape, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 single parameter, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is almost complete for correct invocation. The only notable gap is that it does not explain how fdic_search relates to the many specialized sibling search tools, which could lead to suboptimal tool selection.

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?

There is only one parameter, query, and the schema already describes it as a natural-language search query with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning that the schema does not already provide, 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 searches FDIC BankFind for specified categories (institutions, failed banks, branches, or schema documentation) and emphasizes citation-friendly results with id, title, and source URL. This distinguishes it from data-heavy siblings like fdic_search_financials, though it does not explicitly contrast it with specialized searches such as 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 provides an explicit trigger: use this when citation-friendly BankFind search results are needed. It does not, however, list exclusions or recommend alternatives among the many specialized sibling tools, so it stops short of top marks.

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