list_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies read/search behavior and clarifies that bank_accounts is the searchable collection, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how dynamic resource discovery works, or what side effects or permissions are involved. The phrase 'writable domains' is ambiguous and could be misleading.

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?

The description is compact, front-loads the core action and resource list, and includes a valuable routing note about bank_balances. The 'writable domains' phrasing is slightly vague, but the overall length and structure are appropriate.

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 description covers the most important resource enumeration and the bank_balances distinction, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, it leaves the relationship to list_resources and get_record unaddressed and omits behavioral or permission context, making it only partially complete for a six-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by listing valid values for the required resource parameter, including core and optional domains. But it offers no guidance on term, sort_by, page_size, skip, or sort_by_desc beyond their self-explanatory schema names.

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 action ('Search/page') and a concrete resource set, enumerating core collections like customers, suppliers, sales_invoices, and bank_accounts. It also distinguishes bank_accounts from bank_balances, making its scope clear relative to at least one sibling.

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?

Provides clear usage context by naming the core searchable collections and explicitly directing snapshot-balance needs to bank_balances: 'use bank_balances for snapshot balances.' However, it does not explain when to prefer list_records over list_resources or get_record, so guidance is not fully explicit.

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