bank_provider_status

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

With annotations already declaring this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description adds value by emphasizing that credentials are not exposed. This is a meaningful safety guarantee beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe the exact nature of the status output or any rate limits.

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, concise sentence that directly states what the tool does and a key safety property. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description adequately conveys its purpose and safety. It does not detail the exact return format, but for a status-check tool, this is not a critical omission given the sibling tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There is no schema coverage issue, and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior since none exist.

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's function with a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('Garanti API Store configuration status'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on connections, accounts, balances, and transactions. The addition of 'without exposing credentials' also signals its unique safety scope.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description—it is for checking configuration status—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bank_test_connection. No mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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