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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool supports batched execution via institution_ids. Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those, but it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or limits.

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 two short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the bulk behavior as a separate concise note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition or filler.

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 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves important details uncovered such as required fields, how initial_balance is used, and the distinction between institution_id and institution_ids. The bulk-support note adds value but the overall definition is not complete enough for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter meaning. It only sheds light on institution_ids via the bulk-support sentence; the roles of name, description, institution_id, and initial_balance remain undocumented in both the schema and description. This is insufficient for 5 parameters.

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 states the verb 'Cria' (creates) and the resource 'conta bancária manual' (manual bank account), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like organizze_create_credit_card, organizze_create_transaction, and organizze_create_transfer. The bulk-support note adds further specificity about what this tool can do beyond a simple single-account creation.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'Cria uma conta bancária manual' and the bulk-support note indicates when the institution_ids parameter would be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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