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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: the batch response shape { results, errors }, and the provider_incident block indicating unreliable credit limits/balances during provider incidents. This goes beyond annotations and warns against presenting values as real, which is valuable for safe agent use.

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, each sentence adds essential information: the first defines the tool's output, the second explains usage and a critical caveat. No redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides complete context: it explains the batch shape, the provider incident hazard, and the parameter limit. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, so the description compensates by specifying the array constraint (1–50 items). It does not describe the string format (presumably account IDs), but the limit is a meaningful addition. The description adds enough value to raise the score above the baseline 3.

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 it returns full account objects with extended creditData per ID, referencing GET /accounts/:id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts (list) and openfinance_get_account_balance (balance only) by specifying the scope and including the batch shape.

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 instructs to pass account_ids as an array (1–50) and warns about provider incidents affecting data reliability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for detailed credit data vs. basic balance). The usage context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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