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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: IBANs are masked (showing only country, bank, last 4 digits), authentication via API key is required, and the operation does not consume credits. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful safety and privacy information.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first phrase. Subsequent sentences add necessary context (masking, API key, credits) without waste. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable.

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 simple read-only tool, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the meaning of the history, masking behavior, and authentication requirements. It does not describe the exact output schema or edge cases (e.g., no IBANs found), but the annotations and schema fill in most gaps. This is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 both 'partita_iva' and 'codice_fiscale' already documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but it reinforces that the tool applies to a specific supplier. Since the schema fully describes the parameters, a baseline of 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 identifies the tool as the historical record of IBANs for a supplier, with specific statuses (confirmed, pending, rejected) and the time dimension. It uses 'storico degli IBAN visti' as the resource and explains its role as the reference for judging new IBANs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like guardian_check_iban.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need the full history of IBANs for a supplier and their confirmation statuses. It states that it requires an API key and does not consume credits, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the high bar of explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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