myob_bank_account_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List bank accounts' and does not mention pagination (via 'top'), filtering (via 'business_id'), authentication, data scope, or any side effects. Since this is a list operation, the behavior is relatively simple, but the complete absence of behavioral context is a significant shortfall.

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 a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. However, it is so short that it misses crucial information, so it cannot earn a perfect score for structure.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description lacks essential context. There are no annotations to indicate safety or side effects, and the tool's role relative to the many sibling list tools is unexplained. For a tool with two optional parameters, this description is incomplete and leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 schema descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning of 'top' (likely the maximum number of records to return) or 'business_id' (which business's accounts to list). The parameter names are somewhat suggestive, but the tool provides no semantic clarification, leaving an agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List bank accounts.' This clearly indicates what the tool does, and the name 'myob_bank_account_list' distinguishes it from the sibling 'myob_account_list' (which likely lists general accounts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings beyond the resource name, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or related tools. For example, it does not clarify when to use this instead of 'myob_account_list' or how it fits into the MYOB workflow. This is a clear gap.

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