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 useful context on the API endpoint and that status is translated to status.in. It does not mention pagination mechanics or result shape, so it adds only modest value beyond 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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense with the endpoint and filter notes, but every clause earns its place.

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 paginated list tool, annotations cover safety and the schema fully covers the four parameters, so the description's job is mainly identification, which it does, including the endpoint. No output schema exists but a list endpoint's return is self-evident; only the missing pagination/return mention keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including 'status.in' and the cursor semantics. The description merely restates the account/status filters without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clarifies the ambiguous term with the parenthetical '(deposit routing/account number pairs)', which separates it from increase_list_accounts. It also pins the underlying endpoint (GET /account_numbers). Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than by naming an alternative, so not quite 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?

'Filter by account and status' communicates the intended filtering use case, and the endpoint reference implies read-only listing. However it never states when to choose this over list_accounts or list_external_accounts, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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