Get Available Swift By Swift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no disclosure of what 'bank details' contains, whether unknown SWIFT codes return empty or error, or whether responses are cached.

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?

At four words this is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity is not a virtue here because there is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns or when to use it.

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, the description is the only place a caller could learn what 'bank details' means (name, address, country, BIC branch info, etc.), and it does not say. For a lookup tool returning an undocumented payload, this leaves a real gap even though the annotations are rich.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself carries strong structural constraints (8- or 11-character uppercase alphanumeric pattern, example BOFAUS3NLMA) that make the parameter's format evident. The description contributes no additional semantics such as whether BIC8/BIC11 branches differ in result, so it neither harms nor helps.

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?

"Swift code bank details" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name (Get Available Swift By Swift). It implies a lookup of bank information keyed by SWIFT code, but gives no verb, no scope, and no differentiation from siblings such as GetV1AvailableBankDetails or GetV1AvailableNaics, which follow the same lookup pattern.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated preconditions. An agent cannot tell from this description why it would call this lookup rather than GetV1AvailableBankDetails, nor what counts as a valid input beyond the schema regex.

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