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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (currencies, third-party payment capability, fees, deposit limits, split by personal/business) and explaining what the country filter does behaviorally — a residency eligibility check.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what is listed, what the optional filter does, and when to reach for the tool. The core payload is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 only two optional parameters, rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: it describes the returned dimensions so the agent knows what to expect. The remaining gap is the undocumented currency parameter and the absence of any note on result shape or whether both personal and business rows always appear.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the country parameter well — pass a country to learn whether residents there can open each account — which is meaning beyond the bare two-letter pattern. The currency parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb (Lists) and names the resource and its contents precisely: currencies for receiving bank accounts, whether third-party payments are accepted, and fee/deposit limits for personal vs business accounts. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_rate_history or list_banks, though it never explicitly names the closest alternative (get_payout_options / get_receive_quote) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Use it when someone asks how to get paid by bank transfer, in which currencies, or what it costs" gives concrete triggering questions, which is strong context. However, it offers no exclusions — an agent cannot tell from this text whether a pricing question belongs here or in get_receive_quote or get_payout_options.

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