get_bank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does describe the return contents (ISPB, name, full name, bank code), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior for invalid codes, rate limits, or whether the code is case-sensitive/formatted, leaving gaps for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two crisp sentences that front-load the purpose and enumerate return fields with zero waste. Highly 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?

With a 1-parameter tool, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present (which presumably documents the return structure), the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It's complete for a simple lookup tool, though no explicit failure-mode notes.

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%, and the schema itself documents the code parameter with format and example ('001 for Banco do Brasil'). The description adds little beyond restating 'COMPE code'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the param documentation burden.

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 states 'Get a bank's data by its COMPE code' with a specific verb+resource+identifier, and lists the returned fields (ISPB, name, full name, bank code). It clearly describes what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tool list_banks, which is also bank-related.

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 is for fetching a single bank by code, contrasting implicitly with list_banks. However, it does not explicitly provide when/when-not guidance or name alternatives for related operations.

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