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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds company-level scope and balance inclusion, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default result sets, or filtering semantics. For a non-destructive list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 one tight sentence plus 'Read-only.' It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant clauses. The brevity is appropriate even though it sacrifices usage and parameter detail.

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 tool with a nested filter schema, pagination parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, a two-line description is not complete enough. The output schema helps cover return values, but an agent still lacks guidance on filter semantics, pageToken behavior, and when to choose this over sibling account list/detail tools. Only the trivial no-argument call is obvious.

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 description says nothing about filter, pageSize, or pageToken. With 0% schema description coverage and a nested filter object containing ids, types, statuses, companyId, providers, and search fields, the description adds essentially no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves. 'Current balances' is return content, not input guidance.

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 has a specific verb and resource ('List the company's bank accounts') and specifies the key output detail ('current balances'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like account_get_list_account_details or account_get_account, so it stops one step short of a 5.

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 instead of siblings such as account_get_list_account_details, nor does it mention prerequisites, filter use, or pagination. The intended usage is only implied by the name and one-liner, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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