fdic_financials

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the data being quarterly Call Report values and includes 'Dollar values in thousands,' which clarifies result units. It does not discuss pagination or return format, but the annotations and schema partially reduce the burden.

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 short, purposeful sentences: what it returns, its coverage, and its key filter information plus units. Every sentence earns its place, nothing is redundant, and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with no required parameters, a fully self-describing schema, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to guide selection and invocation. It states the domain, major metrics, filter options, and units. Minor omissions like common pitfalls (e.g., not to use this for deposit market share) are not essential for selecting the tool, but a brief note on alternatives would elevate completeness.

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%, and the schema itself gives detailed parameter descriptions with examples (e.g., filters: 'CERT:3511'). The description extends semantics slightly by expanding the metrics to readable terms (assets, net income, ROA) and noting the thousands unit, which helps interpret output. Still, most meaningful parameter information is already 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?

Description clearly states 'Get quarterly Call Report financial data for FDIC-insured banks' – specificity around the resource and audience. It also names the included metrics, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling FDIC tools like fdic_deposits or fdic_summary, so it does not fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 implies usage by saying 'Filter by CERT number (specific bank) or STALP (state).' This gives examples of when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools. The reader must infer the distinction to other FDIC data tools.

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