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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing the output contents (fees, features, rewards, scores) and the default sort behavior. This goes beyond just restating the safe-read nature but does not address potential nuances like result size or error handling.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every clause adds value (scope, return details, default behavior). There is no redundancy or 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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, return content, and default invocation. The schema handles parameter-level details, and the description covers the high-level behavior. It could mention result ordering/pagination more explicitly, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, with each parameter already documented in detail (e.g., 'sortBy' explains allowed values, 'bankName' explains substring matching). The description mentions default sorting but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 ('Search and compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('personal bank accounts in Poland'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like SearchBusinessAccounts and SearchDeposits. It also states what is returned (fees, features, rewards, scores), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that calling with no filters returns all accounts sorted by score. It implies the tool is for comparative search but does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, which prevents a score of 5.

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