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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: it implies a read (returns a list) and notes account_fk 'may not be 0', but auth/permission requirements, pagination, and error behavior are absent. The critical clause 'Payments received, minus bank charges, are au' is truncated mid-word, losing whatever behavioral context it held.

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 same sentence appears twice, JSDoc tags are embedded inline, and the text is cut off mid-word ('are au'). The first sentence is front-loaded but the overall structure is noisy and clearly broken.

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 3-required-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return shape and caller workflow, but it only says '@return: a json object' and truncates the key payment/charges clause. Enough is present to call the tool with correct values, but not enough to use it confidently.

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 description must compensate, and it does: it explains token comes from /access/login, and that account_fk is a database ID (int, not an address) sourced from /wallet/accounts_list and must not be 0. These cross-references add real meaning beyond the bare schema 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 opening line 'Returns a list of local and international bank accounts' gives a clear verb+resource, but it is duplicated verbatim and never distinguishes this tool from close siblings like wallet_accounts_list, beneficiaries_list, or telco_accounts_list. The truncated tail leaves it unclear what the funding/bank-account relationship actually is.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus any of the many list/beneficiary/withdraw siblings. The 'Do not display blank fields' and beneficiary-reference notes are display/usage rules for the caller, not selection guidance.

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