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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the provider_incident block and warning that credit limits may be unreliable. This goes beyond the structured metadata and aids correct interpretation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides essential usage details and a safety warning. No redundant or filler content.

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 explains the return structure (full account objects, batch shape, provider_incident) and parameter constraints. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema only says account_ids is an array of strings, but the description adds critical semantics: array size 1–50, batch shape { results, errors }, and the meaning of each item as an account id. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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 clearly states the tool returns full account objects including extended creditData per id, referencing the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_get_account_balance and openfinance_list_accounts by emphasizing the 'full account objects' and 'creditData' scope.

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?

Usage context is clear: pass account_ids as an array (1–50) and get a batch result shape. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the description implies it for detailed account data. No exclusions are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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