lookup_ifsc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.001 USDC) and service provider, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid IFSC codes, leaving significant gaps for a lookup 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 description is appropriately concise with three short sentences that each add value: purpose, return data, and cost/service information. However, the cost information could be better integrated rather than appearing as a separate fragment.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and cost information but lacks details about response format, error handling, and usage constraints. It's minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about important operational aspects.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'ifsc' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (11-character IFSC code requirement), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Lookup') and resource ('Indian bank IFSC code'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on financial code lookup rather than analysis, verification, or memory operations. It explicitly mentions the return data fields (bank, branch, address, payment support).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions cost and service provider, it doesn't indicate prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools like 'validate_phone' or 'gst_intelligence' that might serve related financial validation purposes.

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