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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about a provider_incident block that may make credit limits and balances unreliable, and instructs not to present those values as real. This is transparent and useful.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, but slightly verbose with the provider_incident detail. However, every sentence adds value, so it remains concise enough.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the batch shape ({ results, errors }) and important edge cases (provider_incident), making it sufficiently complete.

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 description adds the constraint that account_ids must be an array of 1–50 strings, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing semantic constraints not present in 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 clearly states the tool returns full account objects including extended creditData per ID, referencing the specific endpoint GET /accounts/:id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts by focusing on detailed data for specific accounts.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed account data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like openfinance_list_accounts. It provides no guidance on when not to use it.

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