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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the provider_incident block, potential unreliable data during incidents, and the batch shape with errors. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 concise: three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose, constraints, and important caveats about provider incidents.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (full account objects, creditData, batch errors, provider_incident). It could mention more about possible fields, but the coverage is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds the array range constraint (1–50) and explains that account_ids are used 'per id' and returns batch results. This provides meaningful guidance beyond 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 it returns 'full account objects including extended creditData' by ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts which likely provides summaries. The verb 'Returns' and specific resource 'account objects' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage instructions ('Pass account_ids as an array (1–50)') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like openfinance_list_accounts or openfinance_get_account_balance. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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