bank.list_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that returned IBANs are masked, implying a privacy-aware read operation. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, or whether all accounts are returned at once. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 action 'List linked bank accounts' and appends a valuable clarifying detail about masked IBANs. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for confusion about when and how to invoke it.

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 only parameter, 'institution', has 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'for an institution' but does not define what an institution is, what format it should take, or provide examples. It essentially repeats the parameter name, adding minimal semantic value.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'linked bank accounts', and the scope 'for an institution' with the detail '(masked IBAN)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or list_transactions, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The phrase 'for an institution' hints at a required context but does not explain the intended use case or relationship to other bank tools.

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