Look up IFSC

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data comes back since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for invalid or unknown IFSC codes, lookup latency, or whether results are cached.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the resource (IFSC) and the returned payload front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it will receive.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is close to sufficient — it enumerates the return fields, which is the main thing the missing output schema would otherwise provide. It falls short only on failure behavior for malformed or nonexistent codes.

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 coverage is 100%: the single `ifsc` parameter is documented with its 11-character length and an example. The description adds no format, casing, or validation detail beyond that, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Find") with a specific resource (an IFSC code) and enumerates the returned fields (bank, branch, address, MICR, payment modes), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling, lookup_pincode, though the resource names are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement; the implication is simply that you call it when you have an IFSC. No alternatives (e.g., lookup_pincode for postal codes) or prerequisites are named, so routing is left to inference from the resource name.

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