verify_bank_card

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

Discloses return values (match result, bank name, card type, level) and a rate limit (50 requests/day free tier). No contradictions with missing annotations. For a verification tool, this provides adequate transparency about behavior and 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, parameter variants/output, use cases and rate limit. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Covers purpose, parameter usage, output details, and rate limit. Though no output schema, description hints at return fields. Sibling tools are not compared, but given schema coverage and tool complexity, it is reasonably complete for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the two verification modes (3-element vs 4-element) and how the optional phone parameter activates 4-element verification, adding value beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies a name, ID card, and bank card match, using the Chinese term for 3/4-element verification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_identity and verify_phone_three by focusing on bank card validation and mentioning specific use cases.

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?

Explicitly recommends usage for payment verification, bank account validation, and financial KYC. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or directly compare with siblings, the use cases provide clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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