List bank accounts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns account IDs, which is useful behavior context, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the effect of all_companies. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, names the resource, and states the purpose with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and downstream use. It does not explicitly mention that accounts are scoped to the current company context, but the all_companies parameter hints at that, so it is sufficiently complete.

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 the all_companies parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add anything about this parameter, but the schema carries the meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('bank accounts connected in nula.bg') and further clarifies the output's purpose ('with their ids for nula_list_bank_transactions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle invoices, bills, or other resources.

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 links this tool to nula_list_bank_transactions by stating the IDs are intended for that downstream tool. This gives the agent a concrete trigger: invoke this tool when bank account IDs are needed for listing transactions. It effectively names the alternative and the condition for use.

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