Validate Bank Account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers the key behavioral traits: check-digit verification, per-country format validation, canonical reformatting, and structural decoding into bank/branch/account. The only gaps are handling of unsupported countries and tolerance for input separators, which are minor for a validation tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact format specifics, return structure, and use case in roughly 70 words. Every sentence earns its place and nothing repeats what the schema already provides.

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 2-parameter tool with a bare schema, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers supported inputs, formats, outputs, and the intended scenario—enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor ambiguity remains over whether MX and AR are the only supported countries, and unsupported-country error behavior is unspecified.

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 — and it does: country is tied to the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard with MX and AR named, and account is constrained by per-country digit lengths (18 for CLABE, 22 for CBU/CVU). It stops short of stating input formatting rules (digits only, no dashes/spaces) or confirming whether the country list is exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate a Latin American bank account / interbank code, check digit included.' It enumerates concrete country-specific formats (MX CLABE 18 digits, AR CBU/CVU 22 digits) and the decoded output (bank code/name, branch, account number), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like validate_phone_number, validate_pix_key, and validate_tax_id.

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?

Provides clear usage context: agents that 'must confirm an account is well-formed before initiating a transfer' in fintech, payouts, and payment-collection scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, even though multiple validation siblings (validate_pix_key, validate_tax_id) sit alongside it.

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