banks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (array with fields ispb, name, code, full name), which is helpful, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if there are any rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors. Since this is a simple listing tool, the behavior is fairly predictable, but without annotations or explicit safety hints, the description only partially covers transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the return structure. No fluff, no repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the essential output details into the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: what it returns and the fields. It does not mention use cases or related tools, but given the simplicity of the operation, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of any note about pagination or data size, but that may be out of scope for this basic list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that (properties empty, coverage 100%). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing more to explain about parameters.

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 function: 'List every bank registered at the Brazilian Central Bank.' It specifies the resource (banks) and the action (list), and the scope (every bank). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bank' which likely fetches a single bank, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bank', 'cnpj', or others. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has to infer when this list tool is the right choice, which is a gap for a tool with sibling tools that could overlap.

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