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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that this returns the bank/cash account set with its field shape and that BankId is the foreign key consumed by the payment tools — useful context beyond the annotation. It does not discuss ordering or the fact that results are bounded (that lives only in the schema).

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 sentences: the resource and returned fields lead, then the downstream dependency, then the endpoint. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned columns and the endpoint, which is enough for an agent to call and consume the result. Minor gaps remain (ordering, whether cash accounts are mixed with bank accounts) but nothing essential is missing for a one-optional-parameter list call.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains max_results (default 100, max 1000, total count reported). The description adds nothing about it, which puts this at the baseline 3.

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 resource (the company's bank and cash accounts) and enumerates the returned fields (BankId, name, IBAN, currency, ledger account), which separates it from generic siblings like merit_list_accounts. The verb is only implied by the name/title and no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'BankId feeds the payment tools' tells the agent this is the lookup for payment-related IDs, which is a genuine routing hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus merit_list_bank_payments, merit_list_accounts, or merit_list_payment_types, and no exclusions.

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