BANKSapi Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral detail: return format is Markdown, suffix and index inputs are normalized, and the /api/banks-connect, /api/ai-connect, /api/pay-connect paths return a compact operation index rather than raw spec. It stops short of describing pagination or size limits, which is minor.

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 core action is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by input-normalization details, special-case paths, and routing guidance in a tight sequence. Five sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description closes all remaining gaps: accepted input variants, special-cased API reference paths, and sibling routing. An agent can invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it names the parameter's accepted forms (docs path like /guide/quickstart or a full URL) and explains normalization of .md/.html suffixes and section indexes. This is meaningfully more than the bare 'path_or_url' string in 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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch the Markdown for a single docs page) and scopes it against siblings: search-banksapi-docs for broad questions, get-banksapi-overview for page lists, and get-banksapi-openapi-spec implicitly by noting the compact operation index behavior.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when you need specific page content or code samples'), names the preferred alternative for broad questions, and prescribes a prerequisite (call get-banksapi-overview first). Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on the things annotations can't express: the large size of full specs (a practical cost signal), which schemas are bundled when operation_id is used, and the output format varying by spec. It stops short of noting anything about auth or versioning of the specs, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Five tight sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, what's available, the preferred targeting mode with its justification, the tag alternative, the default, and the discovery path. The most important guidance (use operation_id) is flagged inline with emphasis rather than buried.

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 3-parameter read-only fetch with an output schema already describing the returned spec, the description covers everything an agent needs: which spec names exist, how to narrow the response, what happens with no filter, and where to find valid operationIds/tags. No material gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: spec_name's value set is enumerated (banks-connect, ai-connect, pay-connect), tag is defined as 'every operation of one section', and operation_id as 'just that operation with the schemas it references'. It doesn't show string formats/examples for operation_id or tag, instead deferring to the docs page for discovery.

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 and resource ('Get an OpenAPI 3.0 specification for a BANKSapi API') and immediately clarifies the scope variants (full spec, single operation, single tag). It enumerates the three available spec names, so the agent knows exactly what corpus it addresses, and it is clearly distinct from the docs-page/search siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the preferred mode ('Pass operation_id ... strongly preferred — the full specs are large'), the fallback ('Pass tag'), and the no-argument default ('With neither, returns the entire spec'). It also names the sibling tool needed for discovery ('fetch the API index via get-banksapi-docs-page'), leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the return is plain text from llms.txt and repeated calls are wasteful within a session. Minor gap: it doesn't say roughly how large the index is or what sections it contains.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to call it and what it feeds, and the anti-pattern to avoid. The most decision-relevant information (purpose plus follow-up routing) is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage there is little else to disclose. Everything an agent needs to decide to call this first and then branch to the sibling tools is present.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies a no-argument call by describing the output rather than any input.

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 and resource ('Get a high-level, machine-readable index of BANKSapi documentation') and pins down the payload ('Returns the plain text contents of llms.txt'), which distinguishes it from get-banksapi-docs-page and get-banksapi-openapi-spec. An agent can identify this as the entry-point/index tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('at the start of a session'), two concrete purposes (discover key docs endpoints, seed follow-up calls), names the downstream alternatives 'search-banksapi-docs' and 'get-banksapi-docs-page', and adds an explicit exclusion ('Avoid repeated calls within the same session').

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is already met. The description adds only the query-characteristic note ('natural language question'), with no mention of result counts, ranking, or how to follow up on hits; an output schema covers return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Mild redundancy from repeating 'BANKSapi' three times, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the single-parameter surface is simple. What is missing is routing context against three sibling documentation tools, which matters for a search-first tool in a docs toolset.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description, so the description must carry the semantics. It does specify the expected form ('a natural language question about BANKSapi'), which meaningfully constrains how the agent should phrase input rather than passing raw keywords.

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 and resource ('Search the BANKSapi documentation') and enumerates the content types it covers (features, endpoints, integration guides). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling page-fetch or spec tools, which is the main clarity gap.

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?

Implies usage ('use this tool to find information about...') but never states when to prefer it over get-banksapi-docs-page, get-banksapi-openapi-spec, or get-banksapi-overview, nor that search results typically lead to a page fetch. Guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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