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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: newest-first sort, paging model, totalCount, inclusive date bounds, and the meaning of the documentRequired status. That is exactly the extra context the annotations leave out.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: what it returns first, then the field list (needed because there is no output schema), then cross-tool routing and the exclusion. No filler and the key scope is front-loaded.

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 returned fields and the status semantics, and it covers ordering, paging, and date-bound inclusivity. An agent has everything required to call it and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine semantics not in the schema, notably that dateFrom and dateTo are inclusive bounds, which affects how an agent constructs ranges.

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 a company's bank statement transactions') plus scope details: newest-first ordering, pagination, and totalCount. It explicitly separates itself from search-accounting-transactions, so an agent can pick the right tool 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?

Names the alternative ('For ledger entries in every account, use search-accounting-transactions') and states when it does not apply ('It has no text search'). It also routes the returned acDocumentId to three named downstream tools, giving concrete follow-up guidance.

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