lookup_ifsc

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the returned record (bank, branch, address, MICR, payment-rail support), which the agent would otherwise not know. It says nothing about behavior on invalid/unknown codes, rate limits, or auth, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the field list compactly parenthesized and the format example placed last. No filler.

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 read lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input format, output fields, and purpose. Only error/edge-case behavior and any output structure nuances are left unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it specifies the exact format constraint (11 characters) and supplies a concrete example ('HDFC0000001'). This is exactly the missing information in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get bank branch details') plus the exact key input type ('11-character IFSC code') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. The resource (IFSC code) is disjoint from the sibling tools (pincode, air quality), so no ambiguity arises.

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 example value 'HDFC0000001' implicitly tells the agent when and how to call it (when an IFSC code is in hand). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but the sibling tools operate on entirely different inputs, so exclusion guidance is largely unnecessary.

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