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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds useful return-field info ('interest rates, fees, and conditions') and default sorting, but it misrepresents the output scope by saying 'all accounts' when the default limit caps results at 10. This contradicts the schema's limit parameter and is a meaningful behavioral disclosure failure.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear first sentence and an actionable second sentence. However, the second sentence contains an inaccuracy about 'all accounts,' which makes the conciseness slightly less reliable.

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?

Given the 6-parameter schema and no output schema, the description explains the return content and default sort but misses the limit parameter's effect on 'all accounts.' It also doesn't elaborate on how to combine filters or handle edge cases, so the context is incomplete for fully correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter having a description, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; the comment about 'no filters' is generic and doesn't clarify parameter interplay.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search and compare savings accounts (konta oszczędnościowe) in Poland. Returns interest rates, fees, and conditions.' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings like SearchBusinessAccounts and SearchPersonalAccounts.

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 gives a concrete usage suggestion: 'Call with no filters to get all accounts sorted by interest rate.' However, this is misleading because the schema's default limit is 10, so 'all accounts' is inaccurate without increasing the limit. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions for using other filters.

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