search_banks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that matching supports multiple scripts and returns specific fields, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose behavior like case sensitivity (for romaji), sorting, or pagination behavior. Despite this, it conveys a read-only search operation clearly and adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Search Japanese banks by name fragment') and packs details (scripts, return fields) into a compact parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy apart from the minor overlap between kana and hiragana.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what it searches, what the query means, and what it returns. Missing elements are explicit guidance on when to use vs lookup_bank, and the purpose of max_results. These are minor gaps that do not hinder the core usability.

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 compensate. It explains that the 'query' parameter is a name fragment, which is valuable. However, 'max_results' is not described at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the schema name/default. Partial compensation: one of two parameters is clarified, but the missing explanation for max_results is a notable gap.

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 searches Japanese banks by name fragment, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookup_bank which likely uses exact codes. It specifies supported scripts (kanji/kana/hiragana/romaji) and return values (zengin codes + names), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a partial bank name and need matching zengin codes. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of searching by fragment is clear. Sibling tools like lookup_bank or lookup_branch are not referenced, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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