Resolve a bank account name before sending

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: NIP name enquiry, the `400 account_not_resolved` failure case, live-mode business verification requirements, and money-movement rate-limit consumption. These are exactly the operational constraints annotations do not capture.

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 four tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the tool's purpose before workflow, error behavior, and operational constraints. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 two-parameter lookup, the definition covers purpose, pre-send workflow, error handling, verification, and rate limits well. The main gap is that it does not tell the agent where to get `bank_code` or clarify the return value, though the return value is largely implied by 'account name' and there is no output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It names both `bank_code` and `account_number` and adds the NIP enquiry context, but it does not explain bank-code format, account-number format, or where to obtain a valid bank code, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: resolve a bank account name via NIP name enquiry. It distinguishes the tool from sending operations by framing it as a pre-send check, so an agent can tell it is not a payment-creation tool.

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 explicitly says to use the tool before sending money and to show the resolved name before confirmation, which gives clear timing and workflow guidance. It does not name a specific alternative or exclusion, such as using create_transfer after resolution or list_banks to obtain a bank code.

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