fdic_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the event types returned and the filtering behavior (by CERT number), which goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and event types, while the second provides a practical usage tip. Every word contributes meaning.

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, idempotent list tool with fully documented parameters)Skip; the description covers the nature of results (event types) and how to filter. Since there is no output schema, the description gives enough about the return semantics to guide an agent, though it could mention fields like effective date or pagination behavior.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., filters example 'CERT:3511'). The description marginally reinforces that the filter uses CERT but does not add any semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('institution event history') with concrete event types (mergers, acquisitions, name changes, charter conversions) that distinguish it from generic search tools. The addition of 'to trace a specific bank's history' clarifies the intended use case without ambiguity.

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 second sentence provides a clear use case ('trace a specific bank's history') and implies the CERT filter, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like fdic_search_institutions or fdic_failures. The guidance is implicit and context-based rather than an explicit directive.

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