lookup_ch_clearing

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses data source (1,190 SIX BankMaster entries), cost (0.003 USDC), and return fields. Does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only lookup, the provided context is sufficient. Could be enhanced with latency or reliability notes.

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?

Description is well-structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, RETURNS, COST, etc.) and front-loads the primary purpose. Some repetition of 'BC-Nummer' could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 simple tool (one parameter) and presence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage triggers, data source, cost, and relevance scope. No gaps identified.

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 schema description already includes example and constraints. The tool description adds overall context (e.g., relevance to CH and LI) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states it resolves Swiss BC-Nummer/IID into institution. Explicitly lists multiple use cases and asserts it is the only API exposing this data, effectively differentiating from sibling tools like lookup_bic and validate_iban.

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?

Includes a 'USE WHEN' section that enumerates specific scenarios (e.g., user mentions BC-Nummer, pastes IBAN clearing code, asks routing details for Swiss instant transfers). Also mentions alternatives that do not cover this data, guiding the agent to select this tool over others.

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