wise_get_account_requirements

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which the description complements by explaining that fields differ by country (e.g., USD routing number, EUR IBAN). This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: a single focused sentence with an informative example. Every word adds value, and the core action 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?

Given full schema coverage, readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and no output schema, the description is complete for its purpose. It explains what is returned and why, though could mention it's a read operation explicitly (but annotations cover that).

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% with adequate parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the source→target currency+amount context but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Score at baseline 3 as schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 retrieves required bank-account fields for creating a recipient based on source/target currency and amount. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on account requirements, not balances or transfers.

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 implies when to use the tool (when creating a recipient and needing required fields), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list is provided, which helps context but lacks direct exclusions.

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