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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond those annotations by stating what is returned: account names, types, balances, and masks, and by clarifying the token-scoped behavior. There is no contradiction with the 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 two focused sentences plus a compact call example. The core behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information without filler.

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?

This is a simple read-only, idempotent tool with all parameters documented in the schema and an output schema available. The description plus structured data leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly; the only minor gap is explicit sibling routing, which is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both access_token and _apiKey are already documented. The description's example repeats the parameter names and value formats but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource and scope: 'all linked bank accounts for an access token.' It also lists the return fields (names, types, balances, masks), which helps an agent distinguish this from transaction or balance-lookup tools.

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 use case is implied: use this when you need all linked bank accounts for a given access token. However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives like get_balance or get_transactions, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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