List Bank Accounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them: no note on whether results are paginated, whether inactive/archived accounts are included, or whether it requires an active connection.

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 four-word phrase with no filler and the key noun front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool, though the terseness leaves little of substance.

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 trivial read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It does not state what fields each account carries or whether the list is company-wide or connection-scoped, but no output schema exists to cover that either.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the schema or description to document. The description correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve the company's accounts.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('company bank accounts'), and the plural 'accounts' implies enumeration, which separates it from the singular get_bank_account. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling or with create/update/delete_bank_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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus get_bank_account, reconcile_bank_transactions, or the other bank-related siblings. No prerequisites, filters, or exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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