fiken_list_bank_accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds essentially no behavioral context: nothing about pagination defaults, whether all accounts are returned or only bank-type ones, or that a company_slug is required to scope results.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the limited content is front-loaded but the description also mixes Norwegian domain jargon into an otherwise English tool ecosystem.

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?

A paginated, company-scoped list tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs at least a note on required company_slug and paging. Given 3 params at 0% coverage and no return-value description, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% and none of the three parameters (company_slug, page, page_size) are mentioned in the description. The required company_slug scoping and pagination behavior are left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: list actual bank accounts and account codes. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as fiken_list_accounts or fiken_list_bank_balances, and the trailing purpose phrase 'for vurdering av motkonto' is vague, so an agent must guess which listing tool to pick.

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 only usage signal is the fragment 'for vurdering av motkonto', which implies a reconciliation/contra-account scenario but never says when to use this instead of fiken_list_accounts, fiken_list_bank_balances, or fiken_list_companies. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives.

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