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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds that the tool lists 'all' RBAs and scopes to 'this wallet', which is useful. The @param lines clarify that authentication comes from /access/login. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only operation, describe error behavior, or mention pagination, so transparency is only partial.

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 first sentence is duplicated verbatim, which is a clear waste of words. The @param block is structured and readable, but the repetition makes the description longer than necessary without adding any new information.

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 simple list operation, the description covers the core function and all parameters. An output schema exists, so the generic '@return: a json object' is not a major gap. However, it omits any caveats about authentication failures, empty results, or how this differs from related list endpoints, making it minimally complete but not thorough.

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. The @param lines provide provenance for each parameter: api_key is allocated to the application, while token and wallet_fk come from /access/login. This helps, but it does not explain what wallet_fk semantically represents beyond its source, and no format or constraints are given, leaving the compensation shallow.

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 the tool lists all Recipient Bank Accounts (RBAs) on the wallet, using a specific verb and scoping to the wallet. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like wallet_rba or beneficiaries_list, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wallet_accounts_list or wallet_card_list. The parameter notes mention that token and wallet_fk come from /access/login, but this is a prerequisite rather than usage context, and no exclusions or decision criteria are provided.

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