Справочник банков

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the content of the response (banks with SBP numbers) but not behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, output structure, or ordering. Since this is a simple zero-parameter read-only reference, the omission is not severe but still leaves room for more transparency.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the resource, its purpose, and the key data included. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter reference tool, the description is essentially complete: it names the domain (fiat withdrawal), the resource (banks), and the relevant attribute (SBP numbers). It omits output format details, but with no output schema and such a simple tool, the remaining ambiguity is minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is effectively no parameter burden for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 states the resource (banks) and their scope (available for fiat withdrawal with SBP numbers), and the title 'Справочник банков' reinforces that this is a reference/list tool. It is not a tautology and adds a meaningful detail about the bank numbers. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling wallet-withdrawal tools.

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 phrase 'доступные для фиатного вывода' implies this tool is relevant when selecting or viewing banks for fiat withdrawal. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as wata_wallet_withdrawal_methods or wata_wallet_withdrawal_limits. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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