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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds the context of withdrawal destinations, which is useful, but does not disclose any further behavioral details (e.g., return format, pagination, or authentication requirements). Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing operation.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains its core function. However, the lack of parameter documentation is a gap, and there is no guidance on return values or usage context relative to siblings. It is minimally sufficient but not 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 schema has one parameter 'account' with no description and 0% schema_description_coverage. The description does not mention or explain the 'account' parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation but does not, the parameter semantics are inadequately conveyed.

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 lists bank accounts registered in PagHiper, specifying the resource (bank accounts) and the action (lists). It also adds context ('destinos de saque' / withdrawal destinations) that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like paghiper_list_accounts, which likely lists other account types.

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 when you need to see bank accounts for withdrawals, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like paghiper_list_accounts or state when to prefer this tool. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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