search_bank_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful safety context, and hints at paging. It does not cover return format, pagination behavior, or any auth/rate constraints, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded; no wasted words. It could be marginally more informative without losing brevity, but it is well-structured.

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, 8-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present (resource, scope, read-only). It still omits what results are returned and how pagination behaves, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 already documents all 8 parameters with defaults. The description only summarizes them as 'paging and filters' without adding syntax or value beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Search the organization's bank accounts') and adds scope ('connected/manual', 'with paging and filters'). It does not, however, differentiate from the nearby ambiguous sibling search_accounts (GL accounts) or route the agent between them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It does not tell the agent how this differs from search_accounts or get_bank_account, so selection between these overlapping siblings is left to inference.

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