list_banks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds context about the data source and output codes but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, freshness, or rate limits. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope, then adds the relevant output fields. There is no wasted wording.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the authoritative source, the scope, and the codes returned, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description reinforces the unbounded 'all banks' scope. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('Brazilian banks registered with the Central Bank'), and it specifies the key output fields (COMPE/ISPB codes). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling lookup tools such as lookup_cnpj and lookup_cep.

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 makes the tool's scope obvious: it is for listing all Brazilian banks, not for looking up specific entities or dates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names make the intended use clear.

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