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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful context: the authoritative source (OJK head-office list), the version date (June 2026), and the unfiltered-call behavior (all 105 rows). It does not describe the return shape or whether name matching is case-insensitive.

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, then the filters, then the no-argument default. No filler, though the semicolon-packed phrasing is slightly heavy for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally sketch the return values; it implies code/name pairs and a count but doesn't state the format. Given the simple read-only lookup and fully documented parameters, it is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by framing `code` as an exact three-digit Sandi Bank identifier and `name` as a partial-name match, but it does not elaborate on matching rules beyond what the schema states.

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 a specific resource (three-digit Sandi Bank codes), a precise scope (commercial and sharia banks on the OJK head-office list of June 2026), and the two lookup modes. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_postal_code, get_wilayah, or get_kbli.

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?

It states the two selection conditions ('by code or by part of the bank name') and the default ('no argument lists all 105'), which tells the agent exactly how to invoke it. It does not name an alternative sibling, though none is an obvious substitute here.

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