contact_get_bank_accounts

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose what happens when no identifier is supplied, when both id and kod are supplied, or what errors or requirements apply.

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?

One sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and clear.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return value documentation is not the description's job. Still, with no annotations and both parameters optional in schema, the description leaves the crucial invocation requirement—how to identify the contact—unstated.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for 'Contact ID' and 'Contact code (alternative to id)' already present, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no detail beyond 'registered for a contact'; this meets the baseline but does not clarify parameter selection.

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 exact resource (bank accounts) and scope (registered for a contact) with the verb 'Get', making it immediately distinguishable from sibling getters such as contact_get_cell_phone and contact_get_notification_email.

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 intended use is inferable: call this when bank accounts for a contact are needed. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no pointer to alternative contact-related getters.

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