bokio_list_bank_payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are limited to payments created by this integration, and write/creation capability is intentionally absent — both non-obvious traits an agent would otherwise assume.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately following. No redundant restatement of the name; every clause carries information.

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, full parameter descriptions, and readOnly/openWorld annotations already present, the description only needs to add the non-obvious scope constraint — which it does. Slightly short of 5 because routing to the sibling get/reconcile tools is left implicit.

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 page, pageSize, query, and companyId are fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to paging and adds no query syntax or default-fallback detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List bank payments') plus a paging scope. It distinguishes the list operation from the sibling get_bank_payment by its plural/collection nature, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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 line about creation being 'deliberately not exposed' usefully signals a when-not (don't attempt to create), and the scope note hints at what the tool returns. But it never states when to choose this over bokio_get_bank_payment or bokio_reconcile_bank, leaving alternatives to inference.

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