fdic_deposits

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which the description confirms by using 'Get'. The description adds that data is from an annual survey (June 30), but does not disclose that filters are optional, default limit behavior, or data freshness beyond the survey date. With annotations already indicating safe read, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 three sentences, efficiently presenting the purpose, data source, filtering capability, and use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded as 'Get Summary of Deposits'.

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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's function and typical use cases. Pagination and default limit are missing but are in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description repeats 'Filter by state or institution' which is already in the schema, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get Summary of Deposits — branch-level deposit data from annual survey'. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'Summary of Deposits', and the scope 'branch-level'. This distinguishes it from sibling FDIC tools like fdic_failures or fdic_search_institutions, which deal with other data.

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 context: 'Filter by state or institution. Useful for market share analysis and banking access by geography.' It implies usage scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or provide exclusion criteria. More direct guidance on alternatives would improve this dimension.

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