Check banking access by country

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure, and it does this well by stating the return shape (status per provider, source URL, access date) and by flagging the crucial semantic caveat that no_published_restriction is absence from a restriction list, not an acceptance statement. It does not mention data-freshness or failure behavior, but the access-date field mitigates freshness concerns.

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 with no wasted words: the first states the action and scope, the second summarizes the return payload, and the third clarifies a potentially misleading status value. Each 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 low-complexity lookup with no output schema, the description explains the return fields and the key status semantics sufficiently. Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents both the country enum and the optional provider parameter. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and names a concrete resource: what US business banking providers publish about applicants in a given country. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_providers and get_provider by framing the operation as cross-provider, country-scoped lookup.

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 provides clear context for when to call this tool: whenever you need published banking-access information for a country across providers. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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