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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context about batch shape, provider_incident blocks, and warnings about unreliable credit limits/balances. This significantly enhances transparency beyond structured fields.

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?

Description is concise (4 sentences) with front-loaded main action. Every sentence adds essential value: purpose, parameter usage, batch shape, and critical caveat about data reliability. No redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, batch response shape, and an important behavioral edge case. It does not detail the full return structure but provides sufficient context for proper 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 one parameter with no description. The description adds the constraint 'array (1–50)' and hints at usage by passing account IDs. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it doesn't specify ID format or item types.

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, specifying the HTTP endpoint. It implies detail retrieval distinguishing it from listing tools, though sibling names are not explicitly mentioned.

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 advises to pass account_ids array (1-50) and warns about provider incidents affecting data reliability. It implies usage for detailed account data but does not explicitly instruct when to use this versus siblings like openfinance_get_account_balance.

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