listar_bancos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any special side effects. This is a minimal but not misleading description.

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 no filler. It uses a clear verb and immediately states the resource and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, it has 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description is only one line and fails to explain parameter meanings, pagination behavior, or the structure of the returned list. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with meaningful filters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters. While names like 'nome' and 'pagina' are somewhat self-evident, 'tipo' is ambiguous and the description adds no semantic context to help the agent form correct arguments.

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 clearly states the tool lists banks/financial institutions registered in OMIE, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like consultar_banco, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as consultar_banco or other list tools. The description does not provide any context for filtering or pagination, leaving the agent without criteria for choosing this tool.

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