validate_bank_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate this is a checking/validation operation and that it catches typos, which implies no data mutation. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether any external lookup occurs, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, usage context second, and parameter details last. Every sentence adds information, with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter formats, but omits the return value and error behavior. An agent would not know whether the tool returns a boolean, a result object, or throws on mismatch.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by defining both parameters: account as '20-значный номер счёта' and bik as '9-значный БИК банка'. This adds length and semantic meaning beyond the raw schema strings, though it stops short of specifying allowed character sets or validation rules.

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 (Проверяет) and resource (расчётный или корреспондентский счёт против БИК банка), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like validate_inn/validate_ogrn, which target tax identifiers, and parse_requisites/check_counterparty, which handle different bank-data operations.

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 phrase 'Ловит опечатки в паре «счёт + БИК» до отправки платёжки' gives a concrete use case: validating before payment submission. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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