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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: account numbers are truncated to the last 4 digits and a last-sync timestamp is included. It stops short of noting pagination, ordering, or whether closed accounts appear by default.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by the one non-obvious privacy detail. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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, enumerating returned fields is genuinely useful and largely complete for the data shape. However, for a 3-parameter tool it omits the meaning of include_closed and the type enum values, and says nothing about result size or ordering.

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 only 33%: 'company' is documented in the schema, but 'type' (an 11-value enum) and 'include_closed' have no schema description at all. The description's mentions of 'company' and 'type' refer to returned fields, not filter inputs, and include_closed is never addressed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (every bank, card, processor, cash and loan account) and enumerates the attributes returned (balance, available, limit, currency, last sync), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The verb is only implied ('list') and no sibling is named, so it doesn't distinguish itself from get_holdings, get_liabilities or get_overview.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the filters the tool accepts (company, type, include_closed), and no routing to or away from sibling tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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