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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as a safe read operation, so the description's main added value is disclosing the returned fields (value, currency, usage text, booking date, counterparty), which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. It still doesn't describe pagination behavior (e.g., next_page token) or sorting defaults, but the core return shape is communicated.

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 sentences with no filler; the core action and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by filtering and paging notes. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 paged list tool with fully documented optional parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned, that filtering is available, and that results are paged. The main missing piece is explicit routing to sibling tools for single-record retrieval or connection lookup.

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 the schema fully documents page, order_by, page_size, order_direction, and bank_connection_id. The description only reiterates the bank-connection filter and paging concept without adding format details, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List bank transactions') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_bank_transaction or list_bank_connections, but the name and content list make the scope clear.

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?

It implies usage for filtering by bank connection and paging, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over papierkram_get_bank_transaction (single record) or papierkram_list_bank_connections (to find connection IDs). No when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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