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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context about the 'provider_incident' block, warning against presenting unreliable credit values. This goes beyond annotations and prevents misuse.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words, and it remains comprehensive.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the response shape (including the provider_incident scenario) and usage constraints. It could mention error cases or required authentication, but it is sufficiently complete for correct usage.

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 has no description for the single parameter, so the description bears full burden. It explains the parameter format (array of 1–50 strings), batch shape ('{ results, errors }'), and provides an input/output example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'returns', the resource 'full account objects including extended creditData per id', and the endpoint '/accounts/:id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openfinance_list_accounts' by focusing on detail retrieval by IDs.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to pass 'account_ids' as an array (1–50), which is a clear usage guideline. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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