Search FDIC BankFind

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by stating it returns up to 8 results with id, title, and source URL, plus the 'citation-friendly' aspect. No contradictions 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-use information, and every word adds value. No wasted text.

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 (not shown but noted), the description covers return format, result limit, and use case. It could mention that it's a general search vs. specific siblings, but is sufficiently complete for most agents.

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% and the description of 'query' is already in the schema. The description adds that it accepts a 'natural-language query', but this matches the schema. It provides no additional parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 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 identifies the tool as a general search for FDIC BankFind, covering institutions, failed banks, branches, and schema documentation. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are more specific (e.g., fdic_search_institutions, fdic_search_failures), making it easy to choose.

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 states when to use the tool ('citation-friendly FDIC BankFind search results') and mentions the return format. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with siblings, though the context of many specialized siblings implies this is the broad option.

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