bank_movements

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

The description implies a read-only operation and describes the returned data (ledger entries, running balance), but it does not clarify behavior when the optional account parameter is omitted, nor does it mention ordering, date inclusivity, or error conditions. With no annotations present, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and output without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and output shape (entries with running balance), but it omits useful context such as whether all accounts are included when account is absent, sort order, or the exact fields returned. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 description mentions a date range and a bank account, which partially maps to the parameters, but the account parameter has no schema description and its optionality is not explained. The date parameter descriptions only give format, not semantics like inclusivity or timezone handling.

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 that the tool returns every ledger entry for a bank account within a date range, including a running balance. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like bank_balance or list_accounts because it emphasizes detailed transaction-level data for reconciliation.

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 explicitly mentions the intended use case: reconciling against a statement. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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