m3_bank_accounts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, which is the most important behavior for a listing tool with zero parameters. It does not describe output shape, but that is not needed to invoke the tool safely.

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 sentence states the action, resource, scope, and safety qualifier with no wasted words. Every element 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide to call it and invoke it correctly. It leaves the exact return fields unspecified, but with no output schema or parameters this is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema imposes no burden. Per the 0-param baseline, the description needs no parameter documentation, and the resource scope is already clear.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('bank accounts and cash desks configured in Money S3'). The 'read-only' qualifier differentiates it from sibling mutation tools such as m3_create_bank_document and m3_create_account.

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 makes the use case clear: retrieving the configured bank accounts and cash desks. It implicitly excludes creation/management actions via the read-only qualifier, though it does not name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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