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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral detail: the result ordering puts open accounts first and closed last, and the returned shape is limited to id, name and type. That is useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return shape, then the routing note. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (bankAccounts with id, name, type) and explicitly noting balances are absent. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 single 'id' parameter (Company ID) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further syntax or scoping detail about the ID, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the bank accounts recorded in a company's accounting ledger') and immediately distinguishes itself from search-transactions, which handles the transactions themselves. An agent can separate it from siblings like get-chart-of-accounts or list-customers without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search-transactions when the bank transactions (rather than the accounts) are wanted, and notes that balances are excluded, which pre-empts a common wrong expectation. It stops short of stating full when/when-not conditions (e.g. whether balances live in another tool), but the alternative is named clearly.

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