Get Banks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact return shape and emphasizing that the bank code is 'required' by downstream tools, which goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the core statement, followed by a highly relevant usage directive, a compact output example, and practical examples. Every section adds value; there is no filler or meaningless repetition, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must document the return value, and it does so clearly with a banks array containing name and code. It also connects the result to the real-world workflow (bank payouts and verification), making the tool's role fully understandable in context.

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 and no parameter descriptions are needed. The description does not document parameters, but the 0-param schema makes this a non-issue. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter burden the description must carry.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Returns the full list of Nigerian banks supported by Monei, including their bank codes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_supported_networks and get_transaction_history, and the title 'Get Banks' reinforces the resource without creating ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this before any payout to a bank account if you do not already have the bank code.' It also names the dependent tools (send_naira_to_bank and verify_bank_account), giving concrete routing guidance that is missing from most tool descriptions.

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