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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating exactly what the record contains (form mapping, tax nature, GST, reporting, cautions, reverse-direction code), which is more than the annotations provide. No output schema exists, so this enumeration carries real weight.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the returned fields. Nothing is wasted, though the fragment lacks an explicit verb and the long enumerations list becomes a run-on.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned content, and the lone parameter is covered by the schema. What is missing is only the selection guidance against find_purpose_codes and error behavior for an unknown code, which are minor for a simple keyed lookup.

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% and the single 'code' parameter is documented with examples in the schema itself; the description repeats the same example codes (P0802, S1006) without adding format, casing, or validation meaning. 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 names the specific resource (a single RBI purpose code) and enumerates the content returned (bank form, income-tax nature, Form 145/146 part, GST, reporting, cautions, reverse-direction code). The word 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling find_purpose_codes, though the verb ('get') is left implicit and sibling differentiation is only hinted at rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: passing a code like P0802/S1006 and getting the full breakdown suggests a lookup-by-known-code tool, contrasted with the plural sibling find_purpose_codes. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over searching, nor any note about invalid codes.

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