FDIC call report for a bank

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

Annotations only declare read-only and open-world; the description adds real behavioral context: no credential required, data is quarterly and dated by report date, and a holding-company name search also surfaces the insured bank beneath it. It stops short of describing response shape or result limits beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads purpose and keying options in the first sentence, then justifies use-case. The Schloss/asset-test elaboration is longer than strictly needed but earns most of its space by clarifying why this tool exists; no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With zero required params, read-only/open-world annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially by naming the metrics returned. It omits result shape, limit interaction, and error behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: searching by the SEC-filing holding-company name will also match the insured bank underneath it — a matching behavior not captured by the name field's schema description.

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?

States a specific verb (pull), resource (latest FDIC call report), and the keying options (bank name or FDIC certificate number). No sibling covers FDIC call report data, so this is unambiguously distinguishable across the whole tool list.

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?

Explains when it applies — banks/financials in SIC 6000-6799, where enterprise value and net cash fail — and why the ratio set is the relevant test. It offers clear context but does not name an explicit alternative or state when NOT to reach for it.

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