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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the non-obvious default ordering ('newest first by default') and explains the two key result fields (sumCelkem = amount, typPohybuK = direction), which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination and rate/auth behavior are left unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool and followed by behavior and field semantics. No filler or repetition of schema detail.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers identity, default ordering, filtering and result-field meaning. Only pagination behavior is absent, and that is adequately handled in the schema.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including formats and limits. The description only restates the filter axes in prose and adds no syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and pins down the domain (banka: bank statement lines, incoming and outgoing payments), which cleanly separates it from abraflexi_list_cash_movements and abraflexi_list_stock_movements. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 list of filter axes (dates, bank account, variable symbol, text) implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to the related cash-movement or generic list_records tools.

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