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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing that results are 'Sorted most-recent first' and enumerating the output fields, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: what it lists, how to filter, what is returned, sort order, and intended use cases. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: filters, return fields, sort order, and use cases. It could go further by noting historical date coverage or behavior when no filters are supplied, but it is largely complete.

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 individually documented. The description adds useful conceptual grouping ('Filter by state and/or date range') and notes sort order, but does not substantially extend parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List FDIC bank failures.' It names the exact data returned (failure date, institution name, location, estimated cost, resolution type), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling FDIC tools like fdic_deposits, fdic_financials, and fdic_summary.

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 explicitly gives use cases: 'systemic-risk research, historical bank-stability analysis, or compliance work.' It clearly conveys when this list tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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