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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /accounts) and the fact that status is transmitted as status.in, which is modest extra context. It says nothing about rate limits, default result size, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already declares.

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 compact fragments, front-loaded with the purpose before the API detail and filter note. Efficient, though the endpoint string is developer-facing trivia that does little for tool selection.

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?

Adequate for a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so return values need no explanation. The notable gap is disambiguation from sibling list tools that also enumerate 'accounts'.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the status.in encoding the description repeats. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('List bank accounts'), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as increase_list_external_accounts or increase_list_account_numbers, so an agent must infer that this covers primary Increase bank accounts only.

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 description names the available filters (entity, status) and implies the tool is the way to enumerate accounts, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives against the many sibling list tools.

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