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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds 'SCA-protegido' (requires strong authentication) and bulk execution support via profile_ids, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-loading purpose and key traits (recency, types, SCA, bulk). No redundant words.

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?

Despite good annotations and a clear purpose, the description lacks essential parameter documentation for a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage. No output schema means return format is unknown. Incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% coverage (no descriptions on parameters). The description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (e.g., size, since, until, status, account, next_cursor, monetary_resource_type) nor the required profile_id. With no parameter documentation in either schema or description, the agent cannot infer parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states it's a feed of activities, sorted most recent first, and lists example types (TRANSFER, CARD_PAYMENT, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wise_list_transfers and wise_list_balances by being a unified feed, but lacks explicit differentiation language.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wise_list_transfers or wise_get_card_transaction. Mentions SCA protection and bulk support, but does not explain prerequisites or when not to use.

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