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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the semantics of addedOn, what its presence or absence means for balance behavior, and how to interpret account history. This is substantive domain-level transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then adds necessary data-semantics context about addedOn. No sentence is filler, though the addedOn explanation is dense and could be structured more clearly. It remains reasonably concise for the amount of interpretation it provides.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return-value meaning. It explains the addedOn field, its format, and what its absence implies for balance changes, giving the agent enough context to call and interpret the tool 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% and the single optional nameLike parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description does not add parameter-level syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's financial accounts.' The following sentences distinguish it from sibling tools by explaining that it resolves an account name to an accountId before calling propose-* tools. An agent can tell it apart from get_assets and propose tools without opening schemas.

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 states when to use the tool: 'resolve an account name mentioned in an email ... to an accountId before calling propose-* tools.' It also gives a clear fallback condition when no confident match exists: omit accountId on the proposal and let the user pick on review. This is conditional guidance with an alternative behavior.

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