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 underlying REST endpoint mapping, not pagination behavior, auth requirements, or return shape, which are the details that would matter here.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the resource scope is front-loaded. The trailing endpoint note is minor but harmless traceability 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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint, the essentials are present. Still missing is any mention of pagination flow or what the response contains, which matters for a list endpoint without an output 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 per_page, after_cursor, and counterparty_id are each documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering or pagination semantics beyond that, 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 ('List external (counterparty) bank accounts'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_internal_accounts by the word 'external'. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The reader can infer that this is a read-list operation, but nothing routes the agent between this and list_counterparties or list_internal_accounts.

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