banque_sante

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool makes no network call ('Aucun appel réseau, donc gratuit en quota') and that 'registres' contains more history than the bank actually returns. This is valuable, though it doesn't explicitly describe side effects or permissions.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, lists contents, then provides usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to invoke it, including the important nuance about 'registres' and the weekly renewal check.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds context about what the tool reports, which is sufficient given the lack of 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 tool provides an overview of the bank link status, enumerating specific contents (secrets, linked accounts, consent expiry, quotas, registres). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific data like transactions or balances.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'À appeler en premier quand quelque chose paraît manquer, et une fois par semaine pour voir venir le renouvellement à 90 j.' It also notes that it makes no network call and is free in quota, helping the agent decide when to use it.

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