Create a bank account

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the purpose (draw checks) and the mandatory verification step, which are not obvious from annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and requirements, followed by critical usage guidance. No redundancy or 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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description covers the tool's role in the verification-check workflow. It omits mention of optional parameters like metadata and extra, but these are documented in the schema. The agent can piece together the full context.

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 71%, and the description merely lists required fields ('routing number, account number, account type, and signatory') already present in the schema. It adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating requirements.

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 'Register a bank account that can be used to draw checks', providing a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like lob_bank_accounts_delete, lob_bank_accounts_get, and lob_bank_accounts_verify by mentioning the verification and usage for checks.

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 explicitly advises that bank accounts must be verified before use in lob_checks_create, giving clear context on the workflow. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for other resources.

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