Банк по БИК

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: no token required and data sourced from bik-info.ru based on the CBR RF database. It does not cover rate limits, error handling, or response format details.

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 three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by use case, source, and access constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only lookup, the definition is complete: the schema fully documents the only parameter, annotations cover safety, and the description enumerates the returned bank fields and data source. No output schema is needed, and the description compensates by listing key return values.

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 100%, with the single BIK parameter already documented in the schema as a 9-digit string. The description repeats the lookup key but adds no further syntax or semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and lookup key: bank details by BIK, including full/short name, correspondent account, city, address, and CBR registration number. It distinguishes the tool's output scope well, but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as validate_requisites or company_check.

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?

It gives a concrete use context: needed for filling payment orders and contracts. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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