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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: 'Do not display blank fields' indicates output filtering, 'Customer *MUST* provide the reference as the beneficiary reference' is a critical usage constraint, and the payment charges note adds context. The @param block also clarifies that account_fk is a database ID, not an address, and may not be 0. The truncation of the payment sentence slightly reduces completeness.

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 repeats the first sentence ('Returns a list of local and international bank accounts') twice, which is redundant. It also contains a truncated sentence ('Payments received, minus bank charges, are au') that cuts off abruptly, indicating incomplete editing. The structure mixes prose with @param blocks in a way that is informative but not concise.

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 has an output schema, so return value details are not required. The description covers purpose, key usage notes, and parameter semantics. However, the truncated sentence about payments leaves a behavioral detail unresolved, and there is no mention of any pagination or filtering behavior. The description is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the @param block is essential and well-executed. It explains api_key as your application key, token as the wallet_api_token from /access/login, and account_fk as a database ID (int) not an account address and may not be 0, with provenance. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Returns a list of local and international bank accounts' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from account-related siblings like wallet_accounts_list, which focus on wallet accounts, and withdraw_to_bank, which initiates transfers.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does include instructions like 'Do not display blank fields' and the customer reference requirement, but these are operational details, not tool-selection criteria. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so the agent lacks context for choosing this over similar list tools.

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