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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path, with no mention of pagination defaults, auth, rate limits, or result shape; it neither enriches nor contradicts 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?

Two compact clauses: the action/scope is front-loaded and the endpoint reference follows. No filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It omits return/pagination behavior, but the schema supplies paging parameters, leaving only a minor gap.

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 every one of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description's note that unexplained means 'not yet reconciled' merely repeats the schema's own enum explanation, adding no new meaning.

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 (List) and resource (transactions on one bank account), plus the underlying endpoint GET /v2/bank_transactions. It is clearly distinguishable from freeagent_list_bank_accounts, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

"e.g. view=unexplained for what still needs reconciling" hints at the reconciliation use case, which implies a purpose context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over other listing tools or any exclusions, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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