Send Feedback to IBANforge

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, does not count against the free-tier limit, works after the limit, is read by a human, and refunds verified data errors on paid x402 calls. This is rich and useful beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences with purpose and USE WHEN front-loaded, followed by the key operational facts. A slight redundancy between the colon list in the first sentence and the 'USE WHEN' examples keeps this from being a perfect 5.

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 low-complexity feedback tool with a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, when to use, cost/quota behavior, human review, and refunds. Nothing needed to decide or invoke correctly is missing.

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 100%, so parameters like error_type and notes are already fully documented. The description reinforces categories and links reports to refund eligibility, but it doesn't materially add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Opens with a precise action: 'Report a problem or a need directly to the IBANforge operators.' It immediately distinguishes this from the validation/lookup sibling tools by framing it as the human-feedback channel and listing concrete report categories.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' list names triggering conditions: wrong results, missing data, quota/payment/capability walls. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but for a feedback tool the sibling tools are not substitutes, so the context is clear enough.

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