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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds significant interpretive context: statutory and practical bank appetite are kept separate, minimums are bank policy not law, no account opening is ever guaranteed, and CRS/FATCA transparency is always present. These caveats materially shape how an agent should interpret the tool's output.

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 longer and uses heavy capitalization, but it is front-loaded and information-dense. Most clauses carry operational meaning, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity, though it could be more formally structured.

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?

Given the simple optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers scope, profiles, parameter behavior, the distinction between law and policy, and critical limitations. Nothing essential is missing 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?

The schema already documents cc as an ISO alpha-2 country code with examples at 100% coverage. The description additionally explains the optionality behavior—pass cc for one jurisdiction, omit for the covered list—which is not present in the schema and controls the returned scope.

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 tool provides bank-account access for foreign non-residents in a jurisdiction, and enumerates two specific profiles: non-resident individual and foreign entity. It names its scope and key distinction—statutory position versus practical bank appetite—which separates it from related banking tools.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: pass cc for one jurisdiction, or omit it for the covered list. It clearly frames when the tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it relative to the sibling get_banking_access tool.

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