search_bank_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it counts toward the 'search' method limit, lists specific error codes (invalid_bank_account, invalid_date, not_found), and explains the real-world tax/VAT consequences. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a practical use case, a rate-limit note, and error list. It contains relevant information without excessive fluff, though slightly longer than necessary. Efficient but not as tight as the two-sentence ideal.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the search purpose, input format, rate-limit counting, and possible errors, providing a solid operational context. It does not detail the return structure or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (bank_account format, date default). The description's mention of '26 digits, NRB format, without PL' is nearly redundant with the schema's own parameter description. No additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Finds entity(ies) to which a given bank account is assigned' with specific format details. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on bank account numbers rather than NIP or REGON, making it unambiguous.

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 provides a strong usage context: 'Useful when you have an account number from an invoice and want to check if it matches the white list BEFORE transfer.' It also warns about the 'search' method limit, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'check_nip_bank_account' or 'search_nip', so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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