Create Bank Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the created account is returned, but given non-idempotency it should warn that repeated calls may create duplicate accounts, and it says nothing about auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences plus a compact parameter note; the core action and scope are front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

This is an open-world, non-idempotent mutation with an opaque nested payload and no output schema. The description covers the gist and gives payload hints, but omits required-field expectations, validation/error behavior, and tenant-vs-customer scope, which an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 single `body` parameter is typed only as an unconstrained object (`additionalProperties: {}`), so the schema itself conveys no field structure. The description compensates by enumerating example fields (pix_key, bank_name, holder name/document, account details), which is genuinely additive, though it stops short of stating which fields are required or the PIX-vs-TED branching.

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 ('Register a PIX/TED bank account for the tenant'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish this tenant-level tool from the very similar sibling `ashar_create_customer_bank_account`, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus `ashar_create_customer_bank_account` or when a bank account must already exist before a payout/transfer. Usage is only implied by the word 'Register'.

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