Bank movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — that it includes both matched movements and, for unmatched ones, candidate matches with scores — but says nothing about volume, pagination, or freshness of the imported data.

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 compact sentence with no redundant filler, and the most important content (accounts, balances, movements, matches) is front-loaded. The trailing clause about candidates with scores is slightly run-on but still efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing returns and does so reasonably well (accounts, last balance, movements, matches, scored candidates). However, it omits scoping behavior, result volume, and how the farm_id/group_id consolidation choice affects output, leaving gaps for a tool the agent must invoke without further context.

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 all three parameters (farm_id, group_id, only_open) are already documented, including the farm_id/group_id fallback relationship. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 conveys what data is surfaced (imported bank accounts, last balance, movements, matches, candidate scores) but never states an action verb, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval/reconciliation tool. It is distinguishable from financial siblings like cash_flow or finance_dashboard by its matching/candidate framing, but the purpose is stated as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as finance_dashboard, treasury_dues, or cash_flow. The schema hints that farm_id/group_id are alternatives sourced from list_farms/list_groups, but the description itself provides no context for selecting or scoping the call.

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