bank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'look up', which implies a read operation, but omits error behavior, return format, and any potential side effects. For a read-only tool this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then explains the condition. No redundant words; every word adds value.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description adequately tells the agent what the tool does and how to use it. It does not specify the return structure, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, this is a minor omission. The description is nearly complete.

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 merely defines 'code' as a string with no description; the description compensates by explaining the format ('numeric code') and providing a concrete example ('001' for Banco do Brasil). This fully bridges the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), a well-defined resource ('a single Brazilian bank'), and the exact method ('by its numeric code') with a concrete example. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'banks' tool, which presumably 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 context of use is clear: when you have a numeric bank code and need details for one bank. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the instruction is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool for single-bank lookups. A slight deduction for not differentiating from 'banks'.

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