fdic_history

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds context about event types and CERT filtering, but doesn't elaborate on pagination, default limits, or return structure. It provides some behavioral insight beyond annotations, but not extensively.

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?

Description is extremely concise—two sentences with no filler words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and a key usage tip in a compact format.

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 query tool with 5 parameters, the description covers the core intent. However, it does not describe the return format or indicate that results are a list of events, which might be helpful. Nonetheless, it is largely complete given the simplicity.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The tool description doesn't add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., filter format examples are already there). 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves institution event history and lists specific event types (mergers, acquisitions, name changes, charter conversions). It differentiates from sibling FDIC tools like 'fdic_failures' and 'fdic_financials' by focusing on historical events.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to get event history, especially by filtering with CERT number for a specific bank. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined in relation to siblings.

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