bank_formats

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description adds almost nothing beyond it. It omits whether the returned set is static/global or scoped to the company, whether it reflects previously uploaded statements, and what the entries look like.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the subject front-loaded. It loses a point only because the compactness comes at the cost of omitting the action verb rather than because of wordiness.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description should convey the shape of the result (a list of banks paired with supported format identifiers). It states the domain but leaves the return structure entirely to inference.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input schema.

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 names the resource (banks and bank statement formats recognized during import) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that the tool retrieves/lists them. It also does not distinguish this reference list from bank_list_banks, which sits right next to it among the siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this before bank_parse_statement to check whether a format is supported, nor how it differs from bank_list_banks. The mention of 'import' only loosely implies a pre-import discovery use case.

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