bank_accounts

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is disclosing that results include consent expiry dates — useful domain context for deciding whether a re-link is needed. It does not say what happens when consent has expired, whether expired links are still returned, or whether the call requires a live Enable Banking session.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource plus the consent-expiry detail are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the elliptical phrasing costs a little clarity about the actual operation.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should convey what comes back (list of accounts, institution names, consent expiry/status) and any authorization dependency on Enable Banking. It hints at the two key data points but leaves the return shape and the link prerequisite unstated, and the Italian text sits oddly against English sibling names.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 names the resource (bank accounts linked via Enable Banking) and adds that consent expiry is included, but it never states an explicit verb and reads as a noun phrase rather than an action. It also fails to distinguish itself from the nearby sibling bank_list_banks, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one returns linked accounts versus available banks.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an existing Enable Banking link), and no reference to alternatives such as bank_link_start or bank_list_banks. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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