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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context beyond that: the required auth scope, the underlying endpoint, and the paging contract (next_offset must be passed back as offset), which the agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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, each doing distinct work: what it lists, what permission it needs, and what comes back including paging. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 available, the description compensates by naming the return fields (count, total, next_offset, items) and the pagination mechanic, while the schema fully documents all six optional parameters. Nothing an agent needs to call and page through results is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the relationship between the response's next_offset and the offset parameter, a semantic link the schema alone does not spell out.

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 (List) and resource (bank accounts) plus a clarifying scope note that these are the accounts as printed on documents. No sibling tool targets bank accounts, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from the other list_* tools.

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?

Gives the precondition that the 'configuration' scope is required, which tells the agent whether it can call this at all, and the resource is narrow enough that no exclusions are needed. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it, but there is no competing sibling.

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