Verify Bank Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'verify'; it does not explain what happens on success/failure or whether any side effects occur. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple verification tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat lacking. It does not indicate the expected return value (e.g., account name, bank name) or success criteria, which could be crucial for an agent. More detail would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'via Paystack'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the tool verifies a Nigerian bank account number via Paystack, specifying verb, resource, and context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neuron_save_bank_account (which saves) and neuron_get_bank_account (which retrieves saved accounts).

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 implies usage when you need to verify a bank account via Paystack but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor lists alternatives. No comparison with other bank account tools.

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