bitpin_get_account_numbers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that authentication is required and gives an explicit rate limit of 60/min — operational facts an agent can't get from the schema. It stops short of describing the return shape (list of IBAN/card records) or pagination semantics.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the operational constraints.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and rate limits. The main missing piece is a brief indication of what the returned records contain (e.g., bank name, IBAN masked) so the agent knows what it can act on.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (limit, offset) are documented there; the description adds no further meaning such as maximum page size or default behavior. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource ('user registered bank accounts (IBAN/card numbers) for Toman (IRT) withdrawals'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_deposit_address, get_wallet_balances, and get_withdrawal_history.

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 scoping to IRT withdrawals implies the tool's role as a prerequisite step for create_irt_withdrawal, but this is never stated. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and no named alternatives, so the agent must infer routing.

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