list_banks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only states that it retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, required parameters, or any nuances about response properties. This is minimal disclosure beyond the schema, and does not help the agent anticipate side effects or constraints.

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 sentence of 12 words, immediately stating the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a straightforward list endpoint.

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?

Despite having a detailed schema with 12 parameters and required fields, the description is extremely sparse. It does not mention that the endpoint requires country, use_cursor, and perPage, nor does it explain the concept of pagination via cursors. There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what 'properties' are returned, but it does not. This leaves the agent with insufficient context beyond the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with every parameter having a description. Thus, the schema already provides semantic meaning for all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it neither subtracts nor adds value.

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 identifies the action (Get a list) and the resource (banks supported by Paystack), and mentions the output includes their properties. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_products and list_customers by focusing on banks. However, the phrase 'all banks' is slightly misleading because the endpoint requires a country parameter, so it does not literally return all banks across all countries in a single call.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_countries or list_states. It does not mention prerequisites like the need to specify a country, nor does it state exclusions or when to prefer another tool. The agent must infer usage from the schema, which is not stated in the description.

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