isw_credit_inquiry

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the name. It is unclear whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or what it expects in terms of state or permissions. The term 'credit inquiry' suggests a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to fully understand the tool. It is not bloated, but the brevity results in under-specification.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what each parameter does, or any prerequisites. The tool requires more context to be safely invoked.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no extra meaning for parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'extra,' 'beneficiaryBankCode,' or 'beneficiaryAccountNumber' beyond what the schema provides. The amount fields have minimal descriptions about units, but no additional context is given.

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 performs a credit inquiry for Transfer Service and should be used before bank credit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like isw_validate_customer or isw_resolve_bank_account, which may also involve checking beneficiary details.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'before bank credit,' implying a sequential relationship. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar purposes, such as isw_complete_credit.

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