fdic_deposits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the annual survey context and branch-level focus, but it does not mention response shape or pagination nuances. That is acceptable given the annotations, but not rich additional disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the additional use-case sentence is useful context, though the final sentence could be considered slightly expendable.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what resource is accessed, the level of granularity, the data period, and common use cases. It is enough for an agent to decide when this tool fits, though it does not enumerate available fields.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description only loosely paraphrases the filter parameter ('Filter by state or institution') without adding new semantics beyond the filter examples in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Summary of Deposits' with branch-level deposit data from an annual June 30 survey. It distinguishes the tool from FDIC siblings like fdic_failures or fdic_search_institutions by emphasizing branch-level deposits and geography.

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?

It gives clear use cases: 'market share analysis and banking access by geography.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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