Start Banco General login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals that login expires after 5 minutes if not completed, that the tool returns a security question, and that this is only the first step. It does not mention failure modes like invalid username, but the disclosed expiry and step sequencing provide meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, all useful: the step number, the action and return value, the user relay instruction, and the expiry warning. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the flow, the next step, and the time limit well. A minor gap is that it does not describe the exact shape or content of the returned security question, but 'returns the security question BG asks' is sufficient for an agent to act.

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 single 'username' parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds only that the username is submitted, which reinforces but does not expand on the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('submits the username') and a specific resource (Banco General login), plus the expected return ('the security question BG asks'). It explicitly identifies itself as 'Step 1 of 3' and names bg_login_answer as the continuation, which distinguishes it from sibling login tools.

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 gives clear sequential guidance: submit the username, relay the returned question to the user, then call bg_login_answer. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the step-based flow and named next step make the intended usage unambiguous.

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