fdic_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation. The description adds context about the scope (state or charter aggregation) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication requirements. With annotations, the description provides marginal added 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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action and scope, second provides examples of metrics. No fluff, front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and high-level scope, but since there is no output schema, it would benefit from hinting at the return format (e.g., JSON with totals per group). It is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks 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%, with clear parameter descriptions like filters example. The description only mentions 'by state or charter type' which aligns with the filters parameter, but adds no additional meaning 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 'Get aggregate banking statistics' as a clear verb+resource combination and specifies the scope 'by state or charter type' with example metrics. It distinguishes from sibling FDIC tools like fdic_search_institutions (individual data) but could be more explicit about that distinction.

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 states 'Useful for overview metrics: total banks, deposits, assets by state/year', indicating when to use it for aggregate stats. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like fdic_search_institutions for detailed data.

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