consultar_banco

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

No annotations provided, so description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately characterizes the tool as a read-only query ('consulta') that returns JSON data from an external source (BrasilAPI/BACEN), with no mention of side effects. This is adequate for a simple read operation.

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 succinct, with front-loaded purpose and no unnecessary words. Each sentence contributes distinct value: source, output, usage scenarios, anti-patterns, and common codes. Ideal length for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input, output format, usage guidelines, and examples. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already details the code format, allowed types, and examples. The description adds only redundant examples and no new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('consultar') and resource ('banco brasileiro pelo código COMPE/Febraban'), distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a specific query via API, and lists the returned fields (nome curto, nome completo, código, ISPB).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user provides bank code, needs name or ISPB for PIX/TED) and when NOT to use (search by name, validate account, consult agency/account), including an alternative tool (listar_bancos) for name-based search.

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