Zahlungskonten auflisten

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the absence of limit/offset and that all accounts are always returned, plus negative disclosure of fields the endpoint never provides (Kontoart, Kontostand, Währung). The warning that a Sachkontonummer actually designates a Zahlungskonto is high-value guidance that prevents a real mapping error.

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 front-loaded paragraph that opens with what the tool lists before moving to return shape, downstream mapping, and limitations. Every sentence carries information, though the density (four distinct concerns in one block) makes it slightly harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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 an output schema present, return values need no restatement, and annotations cover safety; the description fills the remaining gaps (pagination behavior, missing fields, cross-tool value mapping). For a one-parameter list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the single response_format parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions response_format, adding no meaning beyond the schema, but nothing is left ambiguous either.

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 ('Listet die Zahlungskonten des Mandanten') and immediately enumerates the resource scope (Kassen, Bank- und Kreditkartenkonten). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling bb_payment_accounts_create and from bb_postingaccounts_search, which it explicitly names as a different source.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('Gedacht zum Nachschlagen, bevor eine Zahlung oder ein Beleg einem Konto zugeordnet wird') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for a different need ('Kontoart ... steht als subtype in bb_postingaccounts_search'). It also names the downstream consumers of the returned value, so the agent knows exactly when and why to call this tool.

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