bank_from_sheba

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. It says nothing about what happens with an invalid or unformatted Sheba, whether input must be a full IBAN or may be just the 3-digit code, or whether the lookup is offline/static.

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 padding, which is the right size for a one-parameter lookup. The parenthetical is the only slightly ambiguous element, so it falls short of perfect.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., a bank name and/or code) and error behavior, but it does neither. For a tool whose entire value is the mapping it returns, that leaves a real gap.

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% and the single parameter 'sheba' has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the parameter expects a Sheba/IBAN number, but the trailing '(3-digit bank code)' muddies whether the argument is the full IBAN or only the bank-code portion.

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 ('Identify') and resource ('the Iranian bank') with the exact input medium ('Sheba (IBAN) number'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling bank_from_card and validate_sheba without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the specified input type, so an agent can infer it fires when a Sheba/IBAN is in hand. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling bank_from_card for card numbers, and no statement of prerequisites such as the Sheba needing to be valid.

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