search_by_bank_account

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the lookup is scoped to Polish accounts and accepts NRB or PL IBAN formats, plus 'Find' implies a read-only lookup. However, it says nothing about result limits, no-match behavior, or what a returned taxpayer record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the identifier constraint is placed immediately after the purpose. It is arguably too terse given the 0% schema coverage, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and input formats but omits result shape, date semantics, and behavior on no match. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does add meaning for bank_account (NRB or PL IBAN accepted) and gives a date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which is genuinely helpful. But it doesn't explain what the date means — as-of date, registration date, or something else — leaving a real semantic gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Find taxpayers for a Polish bank account". The identifier type (bank account) inherently separates it from search_by_nip and search_by_regon, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from check_bank_account, which is the closest sibling and the main source of confusion.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. It never says whether this should be preferred over check_bank_account or search_bulk, leaving the agent to infer selection purely from the tool name.

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