hcm_search_bank_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main additional value is the sensitive-data access requirement and approval process. It does not describe pagination, result shape, or what happens when sensitive access is missing. The added context is meaningful but incomplete, and the SENSITIVE_WRITE exception is unclear.

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 short and front-loaded with the core operation. Both sentences carry useful information: what the tool does and what access is required. It is concise, though the phrasing of the SENSITIVE_WRITE exception could be clearer.

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 search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves too much unspecified: parameter meanings, result format, pagination behavior, and how this differs from get_bank_account. The sensitive-access warning is helpful, but it does not make the tool safely callable by an agent without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset), and the description adds no parameter guidance. In particular, 'finder' is non-obvious and undocumented. Since the schema does not explain any parameter semantics and the description does not compensate, this is a major gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search bank accounts.' This clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like hcm_get_bank_account or hcm_search_payment_methods, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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 an explicit access prerequisite: requires ORACLE_HCM_SENSITIVE=1 and approval, unless SENSITIVE_WRITE. This is useful gating context. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this search tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_bank_account, and the 'unless SENSITIVE_WRITE' clause is ambiguous.

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