fdic_search_institutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about asset/deposit units (thousands of dollars) and the filter syntax, but does not disclose other behaviors like response structuring, pagination limits beyond schema, or potential errors. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by filter examples and a unit note. It is not overly verboseretaining only necessary details. Slight lack of structure but efficient.

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 search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential query capabilities and units. However, it does not describe the response format or how filters combine (e.g., AND semantics), which might be needed for complex queries. The sibling list is large but the description helps distinguish it from FDIC-specific tools. Overall adequate but with minor gaps.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds context that assets and deposits are in thousands of dollars, which is not in the schema, and provides examples for the filters parameter. However, it doesn't elaborate on the semantics of each parameter beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool searches FDIC-insured banks and savings institutions, names the key filters (state, name, charter type, asset size, active status), and provides concrete examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like fdic_failures or fdic_financials, which have different scopes.

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 for querying bank information and provides filter examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fdic_financials or fdic_deposits. It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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