consultar_banco

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious error behavior: for a non-existent code, OMIE returns 'Código do banco não informado na tag [codigo]' instead of saying the bank doesn't exist. This is a significant behavioral warning. It also indicates the output contains integration fields, though it doesn't cover response format or permissions.

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 fluff: purpose and output fields, use case, and error warning. All sentences add value and the description is front-loaded with the action.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, a use case, and a critical error handling note, which is good for a simple lookup tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the response structure, and it leaves the input parameter format ambiguous. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema has one parameter, 'codigo', with no description (0% schema coverage). The description only says it queries 'pelo código', which adds little beyond the parameter name. It doesn't specify the code format, provide examples, or clarify if it's the bank number, ISPB, etc. The integration details listed are output fields, not input guidance.

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 queries a financial institution by code ('Consulta uma instituição financeira pelo código') and lists the integration details returned (obank_*, cnab_*, cwr_*, cod_ispb, cod_compen). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_bancos, which lists all banks.

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 a concrete use case: checking if a bank supports automated statements or collection before configuring a checking account ('Útil para saber se um banco suporta extrato ou cobrança automática...'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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