List Supported Banks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('JSON array of supported bank names (strings)'), which is behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations. The added context is useful but minimal — it doesn't describe ordering, size limits, or error behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return contract. Each sentence earns its place for a zero-parameter tool. It is appropriately sized and well-ordered, though slightly more compact than the top tier.

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 read-only, zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers what it lists (banks for statement import) and what it returns (a JSON array of strings). The annotations carry the safety profile and the simple return type is stated. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, so this is complete for the tool's low complexity.

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, and the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for 0-param tools. Schema description coverage is 100% (there are no properties to document). Nothing further is needed here since there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('banks supported for bank statement import'), which clearly differentiates it from the many sibling list tools (documents, categories, tags, notifications, etc.). The qualifier 'for bank statement import' adds scope that disambiguates it from any other bank-related tool. This is explicit and immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use it — when the agent needs to know which banks are importable for statements — but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternatives. Given the large set of sibling 'list_' tools, explicit routing would have helped, but the specific resource phrasing carries the intent adequately. This is implied-at-best guidance.

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