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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not confirm this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what authorization it needs, or what happens when the optional product_id is omitted. 'Status' weakly implies a read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the three sub-areas efficiently packed into a parenthetical; no filler. It is borderline under-specified rather than verbose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information, yet it never describes the return shape (fields, statuses, booleans vs. enum strings) or how product_id affects the result. For a status-retrieval tool whose entire value is the returned payload, that is a significant gap.

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 single parameter product_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. It is unclear whether product_id scopes the result to one product's onboarding or whether omitting it returns the account-wide status, which is exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.

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 noun phrase names a specific resource (bank-transfer onboarding status) and enumerates its three facets — merchant bank, alert inbox, auto-approve — so an agent knows what it is looking up. No sibling tool covers onboarding status, so it is implicitly distinguishable, but there is no explicit verb ('retrieve') and no statement that it is read-only.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_product or list_bank_alert_guides. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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