Get banks

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

Annotations already convey read-only safety (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds the '[Premium]' access requirement, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and offers limited additional context, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with the '[Premium]' tag and clear wording. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 list tool with annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's scope and behavior. While it does not mention return value format or pagination, those are not critical for a basic list operation, and no output schema exists to warrant further explanation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. No additional semantic value is required beyond what is already implicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('banks') and scoping ('supported by the balance-report service'). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_bank_availability or get_cities, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies listing banks, and the '[Premium]' tag hints at access restrictions but does not clarify selection criteria or conditions. No alternative tools are mentioned or ruled out.

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